Free Enterprise: For Whom the Bell Tolls

I read something this morning that made me want to throw up just a little bit in my mouth. The sad thing is that the point of the article I refer to was one that I would otherwise agree with. It's just that there's a certain self pitying, xenophobic tangent in which the author indulges, and it requires some response.

My response to Mr. Yellen below:

I neither have an apartment in New York, nor am I a European or a South American, but the reference to exploitation strikes me as greatly ironic, and somehow profoundly insulting.

It comes laced with a sense of hypocrisy, though perhaps both are understandable and forgivable when seen to manifest themselves in people that have known little else.

I would ask Mr. Yellen, who's self confessed (and as quickly dismissed) xenophobia verily drips from some words in his article, where the cries of exploitation were when the American machine used the very same principles of buy and sell in so called third world countries, working into labor, land and capital?

Ah, but when exporting American money, it was labeled by all parties as 'Foreign Investment'. Today, evidently, the tables, to some small extent, have turned. Suddenly the 'cheap dollars' allow the 'exploitation' of cities like New York by 'foreigners'.

The whole thing stinks of this all pervading arrogance, really. Specifically, the idea that it was alright for us, but it's not alright for them to do the exact same thing is what sticks in my craw.

For decades now, the US Government, both Democrats and Republicans, have fervently pushed the Global Economy into being this giant instaweb that it is today. They shoved free trade down the world's collective throat, forcibly at times, coercively at other times, breaking down barriers that in some part protected small time operators in underdeveloped economies from competing with robust megacorporations, and as far as the local small timers went, someone might want to wander down to take a careful peek at the categories of local produce that the US subsidizes in order to create a bulwark for the resident economy. Ah well, dog eat dog world, and all that. Except it wasn't always and it needn't be this savage.

Well, I've got news for you, Mr. Yellen: Free enterprise is a frightful bitch. And she swings both ways.

Don't get me wrong, while I don't tend to talk about economic policy as much as I rant on social issues, I find the unchecked and irresponsible levels of growth one of the greater evils of modern society. Just the wrapping in which this particular point was conveyed was, in a word...

Repugnant. Full Post.

Hope and Nihilism in 2008

It's hard to find a blogger on the political column of things that's managed to escape having to read about the Ferraro disaster. As it happens, I was reading through a few posts here and there on the former VP candidate's statements, and I was struck by something rather troubling.

No, this post isn't another rant against Ferraro's statements, that's been done everywhere and I'm feeling rather too tired to raise my own protesting voice to join with the multitude.

Instead, I've some thoughts on the historical context and Obama's message of Change.


To start off with, I was reading up on Ms. Ferraro, and I think as any respectable (or not so respectable) would-be hobbyist quasi journalist ought to do, I thought I'd try and educate myself as to who exactly this woman was and what her background was, what she'd stood for and what she'd stood against through her career.

Naturally, when embarking upon such an undertaking, one refers first and foremost to the most esteemed bastion of collective knowledge on the planet earth, the most highly regarded compendium of information, the very fount of all facts. Yes, I refer to Wikipedia (with some self depreciating sarcasm).

No really, Wiki is a good starting point for a lot of research. It gives you a point of origin to look further into things. But I digress.

While wandering the hallowed halls of this most esteemed virtual institution, the Raconteur came across this transcript of a 1984 (prophetic dating, perhaps, it brings to mind George Orwell) VP debate between Ms. Ferraro and George Bush the senior, who was VP at the time.

As said earlier, this article, if I may be so presumptive as to label it thus, is not about Ms. Ferraro, or about George H. W. Bush. This article is about Obama and his message of Change, and inherently, of Hope.

In 1984, Obama was younger than the Raconteur is now, and had received his Bachelor of Arts only a year prior. What has this debate, this transcripts of to do with our charismatic candidate of today?

Everything.

Strip away the names, the faces, the incidentals. It could have been a debate from this year's primary. What struck me, as I read through this leaf of history, was the remarkable similarity between then and now, in the content of the debate.

The issues are still exactly, perhaps alarmingly, the same: War and Peace. Healthcare. The Economy. A massive deficit.

It could very easily have been Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain there, instead of George Bush and Geraldine Ferraro.

Twenty four years ago, we were still arguing about the exact same things, still hashing out the exact same issues. Twenty four years from that point, they're still here, they're still contended, and they're still problems.

Seeing this, I ask myself, what has changed? Has anything really changed, have we made progress, has there been any effect at all, of the innumerable votes cast year after year, election after election?

How much passion we have thrown into the wishing well.

Enter then Obama, with all his promise and all his emphatic stand. Yes we can, he says. And yet, haven't we heard it all before? An endless theater of plays, ineffectual yet entertaining, riveting.

Is this Barack Obama? What does this say, for Barack Obama, if all of his promises and all of his speeches have all been made before, albeit, with less charisma, less passion, or less style? We've been here, haven't we?

And yet, nothing changes.

That is where, I believe, Obama's greatest weakness lies, and also his greatest strength.

On the one hand, we are all, to a great extent, jaded and disillusioned with the systems we have inherited. It is perhaps difficult to believe another man with another promise, while the dragons of decades ago still hold society under siege.

From a different viewpoint, however, that is exactly the point of Obama's campaign, and his candidacy. He challenges us, we who are often skeptics and godless heathens (first among them, myself), to believe. He challenges us to run the gauntlet one last time and cast aside our pessimism, to embrace yet again the idea of hope, the idea that yes, we can. We can change. We can hope.

In the light of history, yes, you'll find many debates in the past that circle around the same issues today. Yet it is also true that there have been a few among us that have managed to bring about change, that have managed to alter society for the better. There was a man called Martin Luther King, after all.

Could this man, Obama, really be that different, from all those that have come before him, raising the same banner that he holds up today? I don't know. But many believe he could, and he is.

Whether his promise proves as good as his speech yet remains to be seen. What is true however, and something of great value in of itself, is that he has inspired thousands, in this cynical age, to remember what it was like to hope.

To the countless among us, who often find ourselves with many convictions and yet few beliefs, he has given a gift that maybe we have missed out on for a long while.

He made us believe again. Full Post.

Why Do They Hate Us? A Candid Look at the Middle East (Part 1)

Being a fairly atypical sort of middle eastern man, both in appearance and in mindset, I often get asked the question by American acquaintances:

"Why do they hate us?"

It's a complex question. One that politicians have artfully avoided and, in a great sense, created.

The simple truth is that the people of the Middle East do not (or perhaps did not?) hate the West. While the validity of that statement is precarious today, what is certainly true is that the Middle East does not hate the American way of life, does not hate the Western ideals of democracy, liberty and freedom.

There are some among the people I know, who would take issue with my labeling of democracy, liberty, and freedom as 'Western' ideals. But coming from the life that I have, and having seen and experienced life as it truly is in the heart of the East, I can say with confidence that at least in today's world, such things are indeed banners held up under the Western flags.

But returning to the topic at hand, this is not a simple matter to approach, not in the least.

It is true that there are significant grievances that the Arab/Muslim world have against the West. It is perhaps unfortunate that these often valid grievances have been marginalized by the leadership of Western nations. There is this atmosphere of infallibility, this overriding belief in American innocence, rampant among the populace.

Most Americans I know feel the need to ask the question. "Why do they hate us?"

It is often accompanied by a sense of incredulity. And that's the real tragedy here, that most of the people responsible for putting into power the perpetrators of great humanitarian crimes... really haven't got the faintest clue as to what's gone on here.

The following shall attempt to be an unbiased historical account of the events that have led to this great clash of cultures. It is, and I say this with regret, coincidentally, an indictment against the Foreign Policies of the United States and previously, the British Empire. Citations and sources shall be provided to anyone that would like to check back and debate the facts presented here.

The following shall attempt to answer the all pervasive question:

"Why do they hate us?"

To begin with, it is true, speaking as one that has spent the entirety of one's life amid the Middle Eastern people, that there is this tangible undercurrent of anger and violence that ripples through arab and generally (but to a lesser extent) muslim society in the East. Particularly among the poorer, less privileged cross sections of society, one feels very clearly an aura of compressed tensions.

Like the ticking of a bomb about to go.

Witness Iraq. It is a primary example of, not only George W. Bush's (and by extension, America's) foreign policy failures, but of the cancerous schism that exists within the Muslim world itself. Never have a people been so divided, so torn by hate, as the people of and in Iraq.

Witness also Palestine, where Hammas and Fateh factions still battle amongst each other, covertly or overtly, for supremacy, for power, but more, because of this overriding sense of distrust and hate directed towards the other side.

Muslim society has not always been this way. To understand the problems of East/West divide, it is essential to understand the state of Muslim society today, and very importantly, how it got to be in the state that it is presently in.

[To be continued] Full Post.

The Raconteur Bible

This is where we get serious.

Take a moment to try and read up on the various schools of thought out there on what really is 'Liberalism', and you'll end up with more information than you could ingest in ten weekends and a lifetime supply of doritos.

One could pour out the water tank and write an epic post about what everyone that came before wrote and thought about Liberalism. One could cross reference and make sure one's own perceptions fit into the prescription.

I'm not going to do that.


I'm going to cut out the history lesson and dive straight into my conclusions, which are as simple as it gets. Even George Bush might 'get' it on a first read.

First off, unlike many others, my primary concern lies in social issues, and I'll leave others to debate out whether big government or small government holds the greater merit (for now, anyway).

Within that context of social issues, then, here we go.

The founding principle of my ideology, in typically paradoxical fashion, is a vocal rant on beliefs. Simply stated:

Belief, faith, and tradition must not be allowed to become the basis for discrimination against groups (minority or majority).

In our very confused and self aggrandized modern world, the principles of freedom and liberty have been brutally mauled, some might even go so far as to say they have been damaged beyond repair.

We have come to accept, as a generality, the idea that freedom implies that the world should be as we would like to see it. It is a closed world view, it is an exclusive one, and it is detrimental to those over which we have no right, but may have authority, or power.

Beliefs on ethics, morality, and what is right, or wrong, have served an essential purpose in the development of human society. I would not be writing this today if our forefathers had not derived (divinely or otherwise, whatever you happen to believe) systems of ethics and beliefs.

This very post is in itself a system of ethics and beliefs. So why am I railing against myself? A paradox, as I said at the outset? No.

The defining point is that our differences, that our values and beliefs, often conflicting more than they coincide, should not be imposed in any way or form on peoples that do not share in those beliefs, as far as is possible while still maintaining a society that regulates itself under the rule of rational law.

Consider, for a moment, that people like Osama bin Laden, people like Adolph Hitler and all the grand villains from the rogues gallery of humanity's past and present, were all acting upon their beliefs, were (and in the case of the present villains, are) acting with the sincere conviction that what they do is right.

Oh, but we do nothing, we do not act, one might protest.

But you do. Actions are not limited to despots, rebels, and terrorists. All societies act, even democratic ones. Every single time you vote to put people in office, every time you use that political voice, that power, to support one view or the other, you act.

Action is unavoidable. Action is necessary.

The point being argued here is that all action must have a rational basis, that all actions must be justified by rationality above and beyond the unassailable fortress of faith and the impregnable bastion that is belief.

All beliefs, all ideologies, without some rationalization, are inherently equal. The belief of Gandhi, without the buttresses of reason, is as valid as the belief of the South African administration responsible for Apartheid and it's legacy.

Beliefs, specifically religious beliefs, are born equal, are ideas that cannot be proven externally, without relying on some element of belief itself, and are thus all equally valid. All of us are entitled to our beliefs, and I challenge any man of cloth to prove his faith to be more 'true' than that of the opposing camp.

And therefore, no belief should be used as the basis of law, in a society, in a world, where such a belief may not be shared by all.

You may believe that Whites/Men/Straights are religiously or morally more valid in their nature than Blacks/Women/Gays. You have that right. You are entitled.

But do you, I ask, have the right to impose your beliefs on those others, by instituting laws and policies that are inequitable?

Faith is a shield, someone once said to me, with the grandest of intentions. Much alas... it is also a weapon, one that has been and continues to be used.

If justice and equity are to be served, then we must, if we are to be fair, put aside our differences. We must be able to say, Yes, the Catholic has a right to his beliefs. Yes, the Muslim has a right to his beliefs. Yes, the Atheist has a right to his beliefs. Yes.

It is the acceptance and regard that we have for our differences that builds our strength as a community. It is the dogma and disregard that splinters it.

So we must, as a society, and as a world, while basking in our respective faiths, leave behind our beliefs, when it comes to the voting booth, or the policy room, or the Senate floor.

That is the essence of the Raconteur Bible, which, returning to a word much used in this essay, is the core of my beliefs. Full Post.

God no, it's the phone!

This just cracked me up.

Does anyone else think that someone should put up a phone ad with clips from from here?

Wait... I forget I'm the only one reading this. Then again, the sum total of this blog's readership laughed. Full Post.

HRC and Replican Style Propaganda

In his recent entry at the Huffington Post, Jon Landau berates the Clinton campaign over the "3 am" ad. The ad aside, this struck me as interesting:

Many in the pundit community who know better (and I guess I am trying to be a pundit here) will forgive or approve of the ad because they subscribe to a cynicism that postulates that anything that works is smart. Dan Abrams is on MSNBC saying that exact thing right now. Next we will hear: "Sure the Swift Boaters were creeps, but you really have to hand it to that Karl Rove...he knows what works" -- win at all costs and the ends justify the means.

My belief is that you can't be a progressive and resort to these kinds of right wing propaganda techniques.

It's interesting because it assumes that certain political orientations are precluded from certain behaviors. Likely, it wasn't the writer's intention, but it seems to imply that you can assume what sort of approach someone has (in other words, what they are or are not willing to do) by looking at the nature of their political beliefs.

Naturally speaking, I disagree.

It's something akin to saying, as a Catholic you can't lie. Obviously you can, and some of you do. Whether you should or not is another story entirely. The idea that a 'progressive' is not capable of engaging in the rampant fear mongering that got the United States where it is today is entirely baseless. The idea that a 'progressive' won't prescribe to a methodology espousing an 'ends justifies the means' approach holds as much merit - which is none.

The truth is that being a progressive is not a guarantee of anything much. All it means is that, in this particular case, Ms. Clinton holds certain political concepts in higher regard than others. How she chooses to go about achieving the ends her 'progressive' stance requires of her... is another matter entirely.

At the end of the day, it boils down to people and how they approach things.

Think about it. George Bush could have been a Democrat. It wouldn't have made his presidency anything less than the disaster it is, nor would it have made his methods any more tolerable.
Full Post.