Who Needs Two Parties?

Forgive me for being blunt here, but Democrats don't seem to have any reason for their existence anymore. There used to be a clear demarcation between the two parties in the past, but they've become very mysterious over the past decade or so. I've heard the right-wing entertainment on the radio claim that they don't stand for anything anymore, and I am inclined to agree. After the last miserable runup to the election, I felt more and more certain that America was forced to choose between Bush and a bland copy of Bush. There was no Democratic candidate, only a milquetoast version of the current president.

I've read many posts during the past several months in which someone has offered sage advice to the Democrats in the hopes that they will once again become a worthy opponent of the Republicans. I have a better plan. Let's just get rid of the Democrats. Let's make America a one-party system.

There are many types of governments, and none of them are perfect. The type of governing system is determined not by what the people call it, but by what it is. Since we have cultivated a system of corruption where a person's greed becomes his motivation, I say we in America are living in a Kleptocracy.

Therefore, we have no need of multiple parties. All we need are a gaggle of goons who "claim" that they are affiliated with a certain party, but in reality are affiliated only with the person or corporation that gives them the most money.

We would also have to get rid of the Republican party. Sorry guys, but there is no such thing as a republican party either. With everyone funded by some corporation or another, it's beginning to look like were in a corporate-ruled world.

Today's Americans are Yesterday's Russians

If we could go back in time and have a chat with the average Russian citizen during the reign of the Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), we would probably see many similarities. Besides the normal indications of life, the newspapers on the table, namely Pravda and Izvestia, would be headlined with warped versions of reality that were meant only to both praise Russia and villify America. The iconic hammer-and-sickle flag of the Russian nation would probably be prominently displayed outside on a pole. Kids would be playing outside with sticks and stones, cars would be zipping along highways, and the sky would be blue.

Most interestingly, however, would be the citizen's opinions of world events. As in any society which needs the will of the people to pursue its goals, the average Russian would have been assailed continually by a barrage of propoganda, some state funded, that did one thing very well: gave the Russian citizen an identity. How better to do so than to appeal to the citizen's pride, or remind them of how secure they are in a nation which only has the citizens' interests in mind? A person not inclined to critical thought would take the media's messages to heart. Heard time and again, the ideas sink deeper into their minds, thereby influencing their conscious thought. Whatever they saw on TV or heard on the radio would form their opinions on world events.

And so the Russian citizen would believe, with every ounce of conviction they could muster, any outrageous tale, no matter what the truth may have been. Russians were the first in space, so they should have the final word on all matters therein. Russians have no ambitions to conquer the world, so they should do everything possible to stop the Americans from taking control of the world. Russians initiated peace talks. Russians drafted international agreements. Russians are envied and are therefore in peril of sabatoge from the evil agents of the United States. American spy planes continually invade Russia's airspace, while the Russians respect the soveriegnty of all other nations. Everything that the Ministry of Communications authorized were made to fit within a carefully constructed web of propoganda. Thus, the citizen was beholden to their government's wishes.

This was their genius. Instead of holding everyone at gunpoint, they just brainwashed their people. Those who knew better were rounded up and carted away to places far away where they vanished.

Today, we have a new type of Soviet Union. The average American citizen is bombarded with propoganda from TV and radio, some state sponsored, which emphasizes the benefits of a party program or opinion and makes no bones about the un-patriotism shown by those who do not believe. We even have the seeds of a future gulag in the frightening "Camp 6" proposal. Traitors of the Motherland have now become Unlawful Combatants.

Perhaps if we were to sit in a place which has little concern for either Russia or America -- say, Iceland -- we could see quite clearly where the truth ends and the propoganda begins. Neither Russia or America are evil, nor are they icons of truth and civility. They both manipulate the truth, because they couldn't survive without doing so.

Analysis of Fundamentalism

Many of us at one time or another have been granted the unique opportunity to share an awkward moment with a religious fundamentalist. If you weren't saved on the spot, you probably terminated the conversation with a not-too-subtle forceful dismissal.

Walter A. Davis examines the psyche of the Christian fundamentalist and shows how the human mind has to split itself into a bipolar, good-vs-evil state in order to maintain the fundamentalist paradigm. Most interesting in his treatise is the comparison of the fundamentalist actions to what we see happening with the current president of the United States.

Our founding fathers witnessed the problems inherent in a governing body that derives its authority and power from a religious entity. At this moment in time, we can see their greatest fears realized in the Bush administration. Since a fundamentalist's sole purpose is the destruction of its evil self, and due to the fact that this evil self becomes projected upon the world, a world-consuming cataclysmic event is the one thing the fundamentalist needs to become complete. Having a fundamentalist act as the President of the United States can only be the worst possible situation for all of us.

Falluja: City of Ghosts

The Guardian teamed up with BBC Channel 4 News and conducted an investigation into the second seige of Falluja by the American armed forces...sorry, the Coalition of the Willing. What they found was consistent with the usual results of incredible military firepower: rubble everywhere, bodies rotting in demolished buildings, and rabid dogs feeding off the dead. What they didn't find was evidence of the 1,200 resistance fighters which the Americans proclaimed they had slaughtered during the assault.

Americans Are Truly Ignorant

William Cook is a professor of English and a published poet. For the reader who has enjoyed or studied the likes of Shakespeare, Milton, Keats, Cummings, or any other poet for that matter, it should come as no surprise that William Cook's opinions are heartfelt and his prose pointed. A recent article at Counterpunch exemplifies this quite clearly.

The underlying theme to Cook's work is that the American population is blissfully ignorant of the foreign policies of their government. Many years ago, I was a part of this majority, worried primarily about paying my bills, getting fed, and having fun during the weekends. As the saying goes, I was full of bliss.

One day, I heard a news item about something bad that happened between Israelis and Palestinians. Not knowing a single thing about Palestine, except what I was taught in my bible classes as a child, I began a journey of discovery that is still ongoing to this day. What I discovered from relatively unknown news articles was enough to open my eyes to the world around me. At the time, I thought I was fairly experienced, having lived in several different states during my life, including Florida, Hawaii, Virginia, and Colorado. I was certain that I had a grasp on the truth of things..

Unfortunately, I came to realize that I was unaware of many things. The most disturbing thing, however, was that I had been an avid consumer of the nightly news. It was my only window unto the world and it was very tiny.

Similarly, the American public must be incredibly ignorant of what is really happening in the world. Nothing else could explain the public's mind-numbing reticence to decry the torture that is so obviously happening in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay. It has to be the reason that nothing is being said about the wholesale "collateral damage" during the useless seige of Falluja. Only a few brave souls see the irony in the United States' response to the recent tsunami victims, compared to the devestation that has been wrought in the Middle East.

When I eat lunch at a local restaurant, I hear talk of sports, clothing sales, crappy bosses, and other daily trivia. Unless we're all in denial, we must all be like little children: blissfull and ignorant of everything we cannot see. How many more 9-11's need to occur until we begin to understand why the entire balance of the world considers us arrogant and brutish? Do we really have to suffer in order to understand the suffering we have caused?

Of the Patriot

Samuel Johnson was an incredibly gifted and witty British author who penned the first dictionary of the English language. He was credited with the infamous definition of Patriotism: "the last refuge of a scoundrel" on April 7th, 1775. Since he was 66 at the time, it would be fair to conclude that he had aquired some measure of sagacity by then and was not speaking irrationally. However, since the context of the statement was never recorded, we will never know what Samuel was thinking at the time.

A learned reader would also be quick to note that Samuel Johnson wrote a speech called "The Patriot". Intended for the voting public in merry old England, Samuel went to great lengths to define those attributes which properly merit someone a patriot. The image he painted described such a person as one who "is regulated by one single motive, the love of his country." Yet, he cautioned the people by reminding them that a person who appeared to be patriotic may only be doing so for selfish reasons. The text of the speech is a virtual gold mind of quotes which can easily be used by those of varied political pursuasions. But, at no point in the text did Samual Johnson equate a patriot with a scoundrel.

His infamous quote makes much more sense read backwards: a scoundrel's last refuge is patriotism. He noted back then, as some note now, that an individual cannot be taken at face value. A person who boasts of national pride and patriotism now must necessarily be true to that character in every facet of his life. Furthermore, the individuals who represent the populace must conduct their affairs with the "common interest" in mind.

Now, he never defined "common interest", and I doubt that he had majority opinions in mind. It is more true to the spirit of his speech to defined "common interest" as the matters which regard the benefits for those who are represented. The patriot, in Mr. Johnson's eyes, therefore acted on behalf of the people and not of himself.

Where, then, can the average American find a patriot?

The vast, overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country could readily be called patriotic, but it is not the citizenry which needs the strongest attention. As England had experienced in 1774, the United States of America in 2005 is undergoing a change in its relationships with the rest of the world. It could be argued that, in a logical extension, the citizentry are accountable for these changes, but it is quite obviously the leaders and those they have appointed who craft the fine web of international relations. The onus of America's integrity is lain at the feet of these representatives. It is they who must be the real patriots.

I challenge the reader to look closely at the text of Samuel Johnson's "The Patriot", and note the warning signs he gave to the people of England long ago. Then take a look at your representatives and their appointees. Give them the tests which Samuel Johnson outlined. See where their interests lie. If you can, question their motives. Make your own determination whether or not they have the "common interest" in their hearts and minds, and not "riches, by virulence and invective."

(N.B.: All quotes are taken from Samuel Johnson's "The Patriot", written in 1774)

Introduction to This Blog

Thomas Paine had a good idea. He took that idea and created a rather small piece of literature that he called Common Sense. It accomplished two tasks very well: It said exactly what was on the minds of many people, and it spoke with a voice meant for the common man. Its effect on the general populus of the colonies will probably never be fully known. The plain truths of the text, however, are available for anyone who can read.

Between the date that Common Sense was published (1776) and today, very little has changed in regards to the role that government plays in human society. We still commit ourselves to war with other states; despite individuals' good intentions, we are saturated with rules and regulations that are only meant to restrict us; those ruled are still subject to the whims of those who rule. Common Sense expounded upon the illegitimacy of the division of mankind into kings and subjects. In these modern times, America is ruled by a much different government, so the examination of the fallacies inherent in a monarchy have little relevance. What so obviously has remained unchanged is that the American citizens are governed by a necessary evil.

As Paine himself once observed, society would function ideally were it not for the propensity of individuals to ignore their conscience and inflict their will upon others. The necessary action in this case is to create a system of lawmakers and enforcers, so that the individuals' security is maintained. The unfortunate consequence of this action, however, is that the individual must surrender a measure of their freedoms for the enforcers to be effective. It is here that a government is born. It provides security, but it inhibits freedom.

The people who crafted the American government after their separation from England knew all too well that freedom and security cannot coexist without compromise. They were also keenly aware of the problems that a monarchy creates. The Constitution of the United States therefore aimed for the best possible balance between security and freedom. Religion, though significant in the lives of the founding fathers, was not given sanction by the new government. The "divine" rule of England's kings insinuated inequality among the people and was certainly meant to be eliminated when the colonies declared that "all Men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence.

It is this ideal balance that I wish to examine in this blog. Each and every governed group of people has the capability of determining the best course of action and, further, working toward a noble goal. I am a peaceful person and I would never call for violent action to achieve an end, no matter how righteous those ends may be. Thus, I am against war. I also hold no illusions about a utopian state. Avarice, greed, and jealousy necessitate some means of control, so we must have some kind of government that enforces the peace.

Yet, I also believe that something must change in America. We are too powerful for our own good. We are so incredibly blind with pride that we are nearly drowning in our own hubris. As power corrupts a man, so does it corrupt a society. We must open our eyes and rethink our actions. We must apply common sense, as we once did in the late 1700's, and manifest a new destiny -- one that does not oppress, yet enforces peace; one that is truly subject to the people, not subjecting them unnecessarily.