The Great Successor

The best represents the optimal. To gain the best requires constant work to stay above the worst. In the case of Kim Jung-Un, he serves as the best of the worst. Suffering from economic mismanagement, North Korea relies heavily on international aid. In addition to economic mismanagement, North Koreans lack the basic human rights that many people enjoy. A dominant belief that the leader of North Korea serves as a deity grants power to the Worker’s Party of Korea. The North Koreans live under some of the worst standards. In contrast, the leader enjoys a lavish lifestyle. Former North Korean ruler, Kim Jong-Il, enjoyed 700,000 $ of cognac a year along with the controversial shark fin soup, probably in front of his television playing one of his 20,000 DVDs[1]. The key difference between Kim Jong-Il, apart from the obvious age difference (Kim Jong-Il being 52, and Kim Jong-Un being 28), revolves around the social technological and cultural differences between North Korea and the rest of the world. Although Kim Jong-Un’s power provides him with any possession available, the lack of freedom to indulge in the cultural and technological advances of other countries will ultimately create a political problem for Kim Jong-Un.

It is true that Kim Jong-Un is rich enough to buy anything, but you cannot buy the NBA (or the American culture that defines the NBA), a strong passion of the new North Korean leader. A fierce basketball player and fanatic, Jong-Un even spotted some pictures with Kobe Bryant[2]. His passion for basketball leaves him with only two possible ways to keep up with the season: internet or cable. North Korea has no food, and I doubt internet and cable available to the North Korean people. Kim Jong-Il enjoyed cognac and movies, but he could buy these pleasures with little contact to the outside world, discreetly. The internet and cable, however, require a link to the outside world. The link may remind Kim Jong-Un of what his country lacks. The pleasure, the culture, and the advances of other countries may sway Jong-Un against the country that remains backwards relevant to many other countries.

Caving into his curiosity for the west, Jong-Un’s older brother lost preference with his father, and the privilege to succession. Embarrassment followed the news of Kim Jong-Il’s eldest, Kim Jong-Nam, capture at the Tokyo Disneyland with a fake passport. The prominent propaganda of North Korea’s supposed superiority lost a follower. His dark glasses, pressed suit and elegant surroundings encourage his defection from an oppressive ideology[3]. In his voice, there seems to be no disappointment in a loss of favor with his father. He might even pity his younger brother because apart from the great responsibility, Kim Jong-Un is stuck. Jong-Nam carries the stigma of his upbringing, but enjoys the pleasure of his money- mostly in places much better than North Korea.

As the United States, and other countries around the world, advance with the coming years, North Korea remains stagnant. The people focus more on surviving adversity than on the advancements that exist outside of North Korea. In fact, the people do not know past the controlled media’s reports of the occurrences on the outside. Knowledge of the outside would create a fight for the ability of survival, the access to more efficient services, and the introduction of an easier life. Though North Korean, Kim Jong-Un knows of the outside, and he loves it. His pleasures permeate the love of basketball, but the fact that he is stuck in North Korea will only create a conflict in his mind. In a matter of time, Kim Jong-Un might want to leave it behind like his older brother, and when that time comes, we will see how the world and the political structure of North Korea reacts. But, if you were in the same shoes, what would you pick: The red pill or the blue pill? Being a demigod or being free?

---

[1] http://news.yahoo.com/lifestyle-dear-leader-163639080.html

[2] http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/19/kim-jong-un-10-things-you-might-not-know-about-north-koreas-new-leader/

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hZ8h4fGi2o

Karl Marx and Business

Karl Marx and Business

Introduction:

I have actually had the desire to work on this post for awhile. After digesting some Karl Marx readings, I came to the conclusion that I vehemently disagree with the man, and that his views will never work efficiently in a political system. Nonetheless, considering that in Marx’s time the government strongly favored industry over industry’s workers, it is no surprise that Marx’s ideas spread when they did. But, in the end, government intervention in the workplace worked against Marx’s ideas. Therefore, the fact that the government intervenes to protect the rights of the workers (i.e. work days, minimum wage, collective bargaining rights, etc.) proves Marx wrong. However, the fact that big businesses dwell strongly on immigrant labor and the fact that they lobby vigorously for deregulation leaves me with this question: “Are corporations, big businesses, and politicians who campaign against collective bargaining rights indirectly Marxist?”

The Era

In order to fully understand Marx’s argument you have to understand the political atmosphere of his writings. He completed the first edition of his famous Communist Manifesto in 1848 in London, but it was not until 1850 that the manifesto was translated into English. During this time, factories and business were growing rapidly in London culminating into two social dichotomies that Marx would label: The bourgeoisie (The factory owners) and the proletariat (the workers in the factory). The simple nature of such an argument has made it extremely applicable even in today’s society because it translates to: the people who have money and the means to make more of it in an economic struggle with those who don’t have money but work to make more of it. However, Karl Marx assumes a government that favors industry over its workers. Though, Marx does touch on many aspects of a capitalistic economy, my main disagreement with Marx is the assumption that united workers work in a capitalistic society in a mutually exclusive relationship.

Marx’s Argument on the Worker

I will provide a very watered down and simple presentation of Karl Marx’s argument, though it does no justice to Marx’s intricate arguments, it is easier to work with my argument and the scope of this post. I am taking arguments from his works The Critique of Capitalism, “Capital: Volume One” and The Communist Manifesto. Initiating his argument, Marx provides the idea that there is a surplus of a workforce, meaning that there are more workers than there are jobs. Marx argues that it will always be in the interest of the capitalist to get more out of one worker and pay one wage instead of paying two wages. The capitalist wants to get the most work for the least amount of expense in order to yield higher profit margins. Thus, the capitalist begins to let go of his skilled laborers to cheaper unskilled labor, and then he moves from adults to children because they are cheaper. Wages correlate with the demand of workers. When demand for workers is high then wages go higher, but when demand is low, then wages fall. These cycles keep the power of the worker low and usurp their power to the capitalist. Moreover, the competition that capitalism uses in its laissez-faire approach to economics does not affect only companies or commodities, but it also trickles down to the work force. When there is a surplus workforce, a low demand for labor, and (the key distinction in Marx’s argument) a lack of unions, then the workers fight for jobs by offering to work for lower wages. The workers fight for lower wages because a lower wage is better than falling into pauperism: “the dead weight of the industrial reserve” where the “demoralized and ragged, and those unable to work” waste away without an income (On Capital).

Unions: The Solution

Karl Marx offers the solution that “the real fruit of their battle lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers” (The Communist Manifesto). This solution serves as a paradox that proves both Karl Marx right and wrong at the same time. Yes, the workers did need to unite in order to live as human beings and not as machines that were constantly being exploited by the owners of all the capital. Yet, this model assumed a government that did nothing for the proletariat. The establishment of anti-trust laws, child labor laws, collective bargaining, and a minimum wage have depleted the atmosphere of 1850, and transformed it into a new one in which the rights of not just the workers, but of American citizens were valued over profits. Though, it may be argued to the extent in which people matter over profits (this is a whole different issue at large), we no longer live in this state of economic nature in which we have to fight for lower wages to at least have a job. As long as laws that uphold collective bargaining and other worker’s right prevail, the more Karl Marx’s arguments become silenced by a government that favors individual’s rights.

Indirectly Marxist?

Business becomes indirectly Marxist when business favors deregulation to the extent that Karl Marx becomes relevant again. When politicians like Ron Paul call for the end of the minimum wage, or when governors like Scott Walker try to eliminate collective bargaining, they only empower the arguments of Karl Marx even more. Why? Well, because the times before minimum wage and collective bargaining were very evident and relevant to the time when Karl Marx wrote his manifesto. Moreover, the lack of these measures failed, to the point that government had to interject and enact progressive reforms throughout late 19^th century and early 20^th century in the United States. I will be the first to concede that Karl Marx was an idealist in his political model, but not anymore than Adam Smith was. To think that governments without a central figure run by workers was very idealist, in the same way that an economic model that solves its own problems is. We now know that communist ideals lead to totalitarian governments or figures. Nonetheless, the “invisible hand” aids the flow of money through the economy only to turn around and stick the middle finger to those who turn capital into wealth. My main point is that Marx and Smith represent two very opposite economic ideals that cannot work in isolation. There must be a balance between the two, and this balance only becomes more defined through time, progress, and much thought as policy is applied and reformed. Nonetheless, Marxism’s close ties to capitalism (and much more with the laissez-faire form of capitalism), the more Marxism finds relevance in any attempts to make the economy more capitalistic in nature.

-          WSQ

The Efficiency of Modern Political Movements

The Efficiency of Modern Political Movements

Introduction:

I am not a fan of occupy Wall Street, but I do believe that unregulated trades and betting is what led to this economic downturn. The solution, however, does not lie in the act of finding who is at fault because it does not lie within one sole entity. Recently, we have had the rise of both the “Tea Party Movement” and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. But, conclusively, are any of these movements effective and if so, to what extent?

Protests and Utilitarianism:

John Stuart Mill wasn’t entirely correct. Well, he was wrong in many ways, but the reason that so many academics love his ideas and his promulgations is because many (including me) share many of the same ideals with him. In my opinion, one of Mill’s most compelling arguments is the treatment of ideas and discussion in a society. Of the greatest debaters, John Stuart Mill contests:

“The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary’s case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practiced as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”

And, on discussion Mill adds:

“So essential is this disciple (discussion) to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skillful devil’s advocate can conjure up.” [1]

Thus, the purpose of any protest must be to bring ideas and notions into national attention in order for them to be properly scrutinized in a public forum. Only once all ideas have been staunchly debated can the idea that is more applicable be applied. Nonetheless, the purpose of popular protests, such as “The Tea Party Movement” and the “Occupy: Wall Street Movement” is to bring into attention grievances and problems.

Protests and Media:

My main problem with the Occupy movement is that there seems to be no clear goal. Instead, people just seem to be fighting over a vague idea, but for no real purpose. Jonathan Schell, in The Nation[2], argues, “A movement –like a book or an article- can have content without demands. Demands are a later stage that comes once the content is developed and, above all once the movement is strong. This movement was born rich in unmistakable content.” Political movements are not books. The Cat in the Hat never made me want to make a social change in America (though one can argue that preventing strangers from entering your home is a good policy). However, Schell does provide a good point in the fact that political movements must develop some attention and must then lead into a demand. Now, that is where the Occupy movement lost me- where is the demand? The occupy movement has the media attention, the celebrities, and the police beatings to say “Look, this is what we want now. We want this to change and this is how.” Instead, they seem to garner the attention of anyone who wants to impress their college friends, girlfriends, or family into believing that they did something that mattered, but no one ever asked themselves the question: “Where is this going?” Let’s look back at the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement was one that looked for a more libertarian approach to policy in the United States. “NO MORE TAXES” was frequently thrown around at rallies and in speeches throughout the United States. But, if you asked anyone what the Tea Party represented some would reply that it represented a Republican resurgence in American Politics, the elimination of the federal tax, the banning of Sharia Law (for some reason?), and the implementation of Christian values. Well, in the end, no one knew what the Tea Party stood for, but all anyone knew was that it was against the liberal agenda. Once Tea Party politicians were elected people started to realize “Wait, what are you doing to my collective bargaining rights?” The Tea Party didn’t necessarily represent an end to collective bargaining, but the vagueness of its intentions let some politicians take the flair of the movement and used it to fulfill personal political ideals. My point is that if the Tea Party had been direct in their demands, many people would have strayed away from it sooner. This need to discuss ideas goes back to John Stuart Mill’s arguments. We need discussion of all ideas in order to find some kind of compromise. The likes of political movements with no defined goals lead to good media stories, but they lack progress.

Conclusion:

Does the Occupy movement represent an elimination of Capitalism? Then I disagree because competition, despite its many flaws in social services, is still a great system.  Does the Occupy movement represent an implementation of a law or agency that overlooks commerce in order to prevent credit default swaps? Then I am all in because I think that entities with money should not be betting on an individual’s ability to pay or go into debt. Unless the Occupy movement finds something to fight for instead of the old, general “I hate the Man” Hippy argument from the 1960s, it will never cause any change in policy. I like the idea, just not the approach.

---

[1] On Liberty, By John Stuart Mill. Both excerpts are from On Liberty and Other Essays, Oxford World’s Classics, Edited with an introduction and notes by John Gray

[2] The Nation, November 7, 2011, Volume: 293, Number: 19

Money in Politics: Free Speech or Special Interest?

Introduction:

Money makes the world go around. A funny phenomenon happens to those that have more money than others. The world tends to go around them. Recently, the United States Supreme Court has decided that money is free speech and has thus allowed unlimited political contributions legally towards something called Super PACS. Before 2010, regular PACS were only allowed to give a candidate up to $ 5,000 per year for his or her campaign. But, to what extent can money be considered as free speech? Thomas Jefferson championed “unalienable rights” and the entitlement of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Speech, in the form of written and spoken ideas, can of course be defended by nature because ideas cannot be inherited by birth, but only through self-effort (i.e. study, experience, social action, etc). Also, ideas are limitless because there is no measure of imagination. On the contrary, money can be inherited and money in itself is finite (though for some it may seem that wealth grows indefinitely). Thus, is money an unalienable right that deserves to be guarded by the ideas espoused by the framers of the U.S. Constitution? Money in politics is not free speech because it gives those with more money more leverage to change the political spectrum. In the United States, as in many other countries, most wealth is concentrated in a minority of the population thus giving more “speech” or power to those who number few. The United States must ideally work as a republic, though at times it may seem to function as an aristocracy.

The Supreme Court on Money as Free Speech:

The case was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission whose ruling overturned the restrictions placed on campaign contributions outlined in the McCain-Feingold Act. The decision made in early 2010 gave rise to the “Super PACS,” a new look for the Political Action Committees, but now with the added power to use unlimited amounts of money for candidates, unions, and elections. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and he offers some insight onto why PACs should be given the ability to spend indefinitely. The syllabus for the case cites two important points for its argument. First, PACs, by definition, are separate from any corporation and are supported through donation, thus they do not reflect on the interest of a business or special interest, but more on the interests of those who donate. Secondly, corporations are people as well, so any large sum of money donated to a PAC through a corporation merely reflects the opinions and interests of the shareholders of the corporation. My problem with this argument of money as speech is that the amount of money in itself has a different characteristic of value than any other form of speech. In other words, one million dollars can buy an individual a house, a car, a model wife. One million opinions fighting for civil rights, social change, legislation will buy you violence, aggression, and fame to a degree. One needs money to survive, but intelligence comes out of an honest desire for truth. A person can be a complete idiot, but as long as he has money he finds success (i.e. many hip hop artists). Intelligence is not vital for survival. Therefore, a million dollar donation will surely pull a candidate towards the direction of the donor than towards the direction of the person who argues an issue with a million opinions. Moreover, if a person donates $ 1,000 to a super PAC, then another person donates $100 to an opposing super PAC, does the first individual’s “opinion” matter ten times more?

Roemer v. Romney

They’re both running for the office of the President of the United States. They both belong to the same party and they both seem to have a moderate conservative stance on issues as the Republican Party seems to slowly drift into Tea Party waters. Romney ranks high in the polls while Roemer cannot seem to break 5% in most polls. Romney has a strong corporate background while Roemer has been both a congressman and a governor for the state of Louisiana. Apart from the issues, and away from the Party politics lies an almost ignored issue of campaign contributions and money in politics that seems to be Roemer’s staple, an idea he stressed in a recent interview with Jon Stewart (9/6/11). Roemer talks money amidst a problem for the lack thereof in the pockets of many people. On his site and in the interview with Stewart, Roemer said that he believed money was free speech, but he also considered money a corrupting force in favor of special interests and lobbyists. Money feeds political stagnation. A sign of his fight against money in politics is his 100$ limit on all donations to his campaign along with full disclosure. On the contrary, a pro-Romney super PAC, named Restore Our Future, received an anonymous donation of one million dollars from former Bain capital (Romney’s private equity investment group) managing director Ed Conard. To grasp how big a donation $ 1,000,000 really is, consider that it would require 10,000 maximum donations from Roemer supporters to match just one donation from a former associate of Mitt Romney. It would take 10,000 donations from people who had strong support for the views and actions of a candidate to match the will of one individual who happens to be rich enough to donate en masse. In Romney’s defense, the money did not go directly to him and in this case it was donated to a PAC that supports him. Nonetheless, to think that one million dollars from a pro-Romney PAC will not be used to support his campaign is foolish.

Conclusion:

Business creates money and politics defends rights. In my opinion there is no crossover. Of course, money is a big motivator and it does fulfill self-interest. I am sure that no medical doctor would invest so much money and time in school and training to earn meager amounts in salary and bonuses every year. But, there is a difference between self-interest and greed. Self-interest serves as the want and need to fulfill one’s own need for survival and pleasures. Greed is over indulging in self-interest (mostly pleasure over need) at the expense of others. Take self-interest as a small business fulfilling the needs of supply and demand in a city. Take greed as a giant company that uses illegal immigrants for cheap labor as a way to maximize profits. Greed is good… only to the extent that it can be exploited against others to the benefit of a few. Self-interest is inherent; greed is created. One can’t blame business because its sole purpose is to make money, and the sole purpose of politics is to defend the rights of its citizens. Now, when money is used to influence politics, the rights that are defended are those of that have the most money and thus most power. Freedom of speech is a way for the grievances, rights, and opinions of the individuals who make the population of the United States, despite class, color, religion, to change politics in a way through writing, singing, and drawing (these possibilities are infinite). Money, on the other hand, speaks for itself and needs no interpretation, it is necessary of course as a medium of trade, but not as a mediator in politics.

Disclaimer: Super PACS and unlimited contributions do not have an affiliation for just one party, but instead seep into all politics. Barack Obama has beat every Republican candidate in fundraising by large margins and to think that most of the donations were from regular people (considering how low his numbers are) is also foolish. Large corporations, companies, and individuals have also fueled Obama’s campaign as much as it has fueled the campaigns of thousands of congressmen, senators, governors and presidential candidates from both parties. There is no exception in my argument from any political sphere that makes decisions in accordance with money and special interests.

Sources:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/06/romney-super-pac-mystery-donor-bain_n_920151.html

http://www.buddyroemer.com/about/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

The Case for Religion and Religious Toleration

Background

Throughout history, religion has served as the ultimate answer to many complicated questions in society: Why are we here? What happens after death? As an individual what should I strive to be? Religion has usually taken the mores and customs of a region and transformed them into a uniform way of life for a particular area. Thus, religion takes customs, beliefs, and worldviews and relates them to humanity, spirituality and morality. Since religion takes custom into account, it is no surprise that religion should differ so much throughout the world. During times when the world was much less open and globalized, it must have been easy to say, “Oh you’re from Western Europe? Then, you must be Roman Catholic” or “You’re from the Middle East? Then you must be Muslim.” Religion shaped society and therefore the people of that society. However, in time, came the notion that one way of life, one custom, and one religion was far more superior to other religions. These sentiments of superiority led to discrimination, violence and war. Nonetheless, much of the ill consequences have unfairly used religion as a motivation when in reality prejudice and greed served as the true motivations. Ideological imperialism was waged with an appeal to a higher power as a façade. Now we live in a much more globalized world in which society has evolved to harbor many cultures and religions. Consequently, individuals must become more apt to accept others ideals, customs and religions in order to fully appreciate the great aspects of our global society. We need religious toleration. Any barrier to the acceptance of the belief of others will only result in the repetition of discrimination and violence for time to come.

The Characteristics of Modern Religion

Christianity and Islam both espouse ideas of unity, peace, and love for humanity.  For Christianity, the most important and arguably most referenced idea of the bible is the Ten Commandments. Of the Ten Commandments, the most important commandments to apply to the life of the ideal Christian man would be “You shall have no other gods to rival me (God),” “You shall not kill,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear fall witness against your neighbor,” and “You shall not set your heart on…any of your neighbor’s possessions.” Therefore, in the basest terms, a good Christian is a man who accepts only one God as the one true God while respecting another’s trust, another’s life, and another’s possessions. A Christian’s life is introverted in the sense that the individual must have inner faith for one God, but he or she must also uphold a great amount of respect for other individuals. A Christian does not necessarily have to be involved with the life of another besides his and his family’s path in Christianity. Likewise, Islam also touches on the same type of nature in which the individual follows Allah, but still upholds respect for other individuals. Islam requires full faith and dedication to Allah, as in the sole faith in God (or Yahweh) for Christians. Islam also subscribes to the nation that peace can be the answer to many problems of the world. The Qur’an states, “And good and evil deeds are not alike. Repel evil with good. And he who is your enemy will become your dearest friend.” Instead of acts of violence or anger, Islam champions peaceful methods to show an overarching theme of peace amongst humanity. Violence harbors hate and division, while peace and love create unity. Both religions, in simple terms, support faith and peace as basic qualities of their theological ideals.

Religion in the Forefront of Violent Acts

For centuries, religion and theology have been used to support violent events from the crusades in the 11^th century, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1800s and the recent presence of Al-Qaeda. The crusades were wars between Christian and Muslim armies over disputed lands (argued by the Catholic Church as holy lands and thus property of the Church). To analyze how serious the Christians and Muslims were about the lands they were fighting over, one must consider that there were more than five campaigns that spilled over many centuries. To deduce the crusades as merely various fights over lands is a gross understatement once the trade of goods and ideas is taken into consideration. But, the important quality of the crusades is this idea: “We are fighting for these lands because God/ Allah want us to do so.” Sure, the bible contains countless tales of King David and the wars he waged, but, many of the anecdotes offer advice or a moral, such as the story of when King David had the army general “accidently” killed in battle because he wanted to marry the general’s wife (don’t worry God gave David a good scolding). The bible must be taken into perspective as the guideline to the complete theology of the Christian church. The purpose of the bible is offer explanations for aspects of life. The crusades served as a means for the Church and its leaders to gain more land and thus more wealth. Therefore, it looks like many of the Church leaders were coveting their neighbors lands, and so, not a completely Christian motivation. There exist instances when an individual might have to kill another, but to say that killing is ever justified under a Christian motive is most definitely a fallacy. The Ku Klux Klan was and still is a hate group in the United States that supports a “white only” and Protestant America (usually nitpicking lines from the bible to find some biblical support for their cause). The Ku Klux Klan does not represent Christianity. Taking the Ku Klux Klan into consideration, “the golden rule” begs application. When a follower asked Jesus, “What is the most important commandment” he replied, “Love thy neighbor as you love thyself” (This became known as the “Golden Rule”). To scrutinize the Ku Klux Klan under the golden rule would garner this motto: I don’t like myself very much, so you can lynch me. Of course, the Ku Klux Klan would never endorse such a motto though Jesus himself taught love for everyone in the bible. Another group, Al-Qaeda, wants to fight the great nations of the world in the name of Allah. America is seen as Al-Qaeda’s greatest enemy. Famously, Al-Qaeda has called for a jihad, or religious duty, against the United States. Contrarily, scholars of the Qur’an deny that a jihad is a violent act in the name of Islam, but it serves as a “quest to control base instincts such as, greed, lust and cruelty and to seek spiritual purity[1]…” Once again, the Qur’an references peace towards enemies as a much greater reward than wanton violence. Consequently, Al- Qaeda cannot claim to justly represent the major views of Islam.

Real Religion

The individuals who truly embody the teachings of Christianity and Islam will never be celebrities, personalities or socialites. The heroes of religion are the people who push aside possessions in order to ameliorate people who are poor and benefit from specific services. The Mother Teresas and Ghandis of the world are unknown. Perhaps, it becomes easier to point fingers at groups or actions because of their unconventional views because the individuals who truly embody their religion are generally unknown and under the radar. It becomes much easier to blame religion when one of these groups or actions uses religion, though the actions do not even qualify to support a belief of a particular religion. Moreover, Christianity and Islam champion a peace amongst humanity as an ultimate goal through kindness and love in lieu of violence and anger.

Religion in Society

Religion works for some people and it doesn’t work for others. In the end, it is fine that some people choose to believe in a religion and it is also okay if others choose not to subscribe to a religion. My main problem comes when individuals try to discredit religion as some kind of underlying evil force in society. Ultimately, individuals who waged war in the name of religion obviously did not comprehend that some of the world’s major religions strongly oppose violent acts in favor of peace towards others. A writer cannot be a writer if she doesn’t write. A race car driver cannot be a driver if he cannot drive. But, for some reason, an outlying religious zealot (or group) somehow represents a specific religion even if he doesn’t fulfill the most basic tenets of a particular religion. No one ever blames the thousands of religious organizations around the world for aiding and teaching the impoverished. On the other hand, there exist tons of groups, such as the Peace Corps, that are not affiliated to a certain religion, yet still fulfill many duties out of kindness. Therefore, it is possible to be charitable even if an individual is not tied to a particular religion. The blame for discrimination can go both ways. Conclusively, the solution is very simple: respect and toleration. Respect those who choose not to follow a religion and tolerate those who choose to do so. For too long, people have used religion and beliefs as a way to judge others. Now, it should be the time to actually recognize that in the midst of all the beliefs and ideas, we are just people.

Sources:

The Bible

The Qur’an

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html

http://islam101.net/peace-in-islam/275-peace-in-quran.html

http://history-world.org/crusades.htm

http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint/touchstone/KKK-Fisher.htm

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_kukluxklan.htm

---

[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html

The United States Foreign Policy in Latin America

The United States Foreign Policy in Latin America

Background:

The DREAM Act has passed in both the states of California and Illinois. Though much of the criticism of the DREAM Act has been that the act gives benefits to illegal immigrants who have essentially broken the law by living in the US without proper documentation, I feel that the influx of illegal immigrants (especially from Central American) during the 1980s and 1990s can be traced to misplaced American foreign policies. From Harry Truman’s containment to Condoleezza Rice’s defense of the Democratic Peace Theory, the United States has frequently tried to have some say in the governments of the world. However, I feel that Americans should not be surprised that there are so many illegal immigrants in the United States because failed foreign endeavors have stalled the progress of political institutions in Latin America. The civil wars of Guatemala and El Salvador serve as examples to failed American intervention. When political institutions fail in their purpose, then people look to the United States despite persecution. The DREAM Act offers some future at least to the children who had to experience hectic lives in search of a better existence. To think that the DREAM Act is just a handout paid for by taxes on citizens for the benefit of illegal immigrants is ignorance. I would definitely encourage further research on the DREAM act (http://www­.whitehous­e.gov/blog­/2010/12/0­1/get-fact­s-dream-ac­t)

Trends of US Foreign Policy:

Ever since Stalin began taking control of Eastern Europe after World War II, the United States took the mission to stall the spread of communism around the world. This became known as the foreign policy term as “Containment.” President Truman solidified the idea of containment through the formation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), to serve as an intergovernmental military alliance to fight against an external party (the Soviet Union). Containment has led through most of the United States’ military operations: the Korean War in the 1950s, the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s, and involvement in Afghanistan during the 1980s. These major military operations were concentrated in areas where the Soviet Union could have a direct influence, or where the Soviet Union could initiate an operation. However, any involvement in Latin America would have to be discrete as to not start a “red scare” à la Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba stood as an obvious target to watch since it was outright communist. Nonetheless, the risk of having any other Latin American country, considering the proximity to the United States, become communist could be detrimental to the United States. In contrast to any missions outside the Americas, American involvement had to be subtle as to not cause alarm. Much of the involvement followed the idea that if Latin America were democratic, then these states would be friendly to the United States. The “Democratic Peace Theory” states that democracies, for some detail in their definition, rarely or never go to war with one another. These policies garnered different effects in Latin America and the Latin American population of the United States.

US involvement in Guatemala:

In a piece on the CIA website, David M. Barrett states that early on in the cold war the United States congress could give strong support for covert operations without many people knowing[1]. In 1944, a revolution commenced in Guatemala where Dictator Jorge Ubico was overthrown in favor of a democracy. A civilian president named Juan Jose Arevalo was soon elected. However, the men who took charge in Guatemala created a leftist regime, thus putting the United States on its toes. One must remember that the government in Guatemala had been “elected” and not at all forced upon. Nonetheless, the principles of Guatemala’s democracy still bothered the United States, who could not stand any form or sign of communism so close to home. Guatemala’s final stand before American intervention came when US-corporations, such as the United Fruit Company, could not escape the Guatemalan government’s land expropriation. Soon, Guatemala bought Soviet armaments from Czechoslovakia and the United States could no longer watch idly. In the eyes of the CIA, Guatemala had turned “red.”The target became Jacobo Arbenz, Arevalo’s successor. In May and June of 1954, the US used to CIA to easily overthrow Guatemala’s government. The US kept quiet. Though the initial coup of 1954 was seen as a success, as more repressive regimes abdicated the leadership position in Guatemala for the ensuing five decades, the intervention was seen as a failure. The CIA had trained a select number of rebels to issue an attack on the head of state. Once victory had been won, a military leadership took over the Guatemalan government.

US involvement in El Salvador:

El Salvador had been a nation of class struggles since the early 1880s. Coffee was the main cash crop of the country accounting for 95% of the nation’s income in the hands of 2% of the population. The great economic class disparity led to the creation of the Central American Socialist Party which pitted peasants against the government. The government established death squads in response to kill anyone who wanted to cross the government. By 1979, the power struggle between the government and the peasants had reached its zenith. The five main guerilla groups in El Salvador united to become the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (or FMLN) in order to combat to government, and thus the civil war commenced. In order to combat this leftist uprising, the United States government offered much military aid in forms of weapons and money. Like Guatemala, the United States could not risk having a communist nation so close to home while fighting Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. However, the Salvadoran military’s force against the guerillas and the people of El Salvador put US involvement and issues of human rights into question. The murder of Archbishop Romero (now a Martyr for the El Salvadoran people’s cause) is still used as an example of the military’s cruelty. Calling for the US to stop sending aid to the Salvadoran military, Archbishop Romero was shot through the heart while celebrating mass. A peace deal was finally reached in 1992, but at the cost of about an estimated 70,000 casualties involving women, children and clergy.

Illegal Immigrants in the US:

It comes down to this point in the end: Do you really blame so many Latin Americans for fleeing to the United States? They evade massacres and unfair governments in favor of persecution, but with at least some hope of survival. Many of these countries were taking the steps that would make democracy work for their respective peoples. Instead, the US used its influence to make a government accountable to the US, not to the people. Unfortunately, democracy cannot exist unless it is accountable to its own people. We must remember that democracy did not happen overnight in the United States either. African-Americans did not get the right to vote until the latter part of the 19^th century and laws barring their ability to vote were not abolished until 1965, and women could not vote until the 19^th amendment was passed in 1920. Democracy needs time to evolve for the specific needs and solutions of its particular state. There are many illegal immigrants in the United States because American foreign policy has given the people a reason to illegally immigrate to the United States. In the course of creating a pro-American regime in Central America, the United States has created a juxtaposition of an efficient (for the most part) democratic government adjacent to inefficient, tyrannical governments in the Americas. Without a working government and without a stable opportunity of advancement, a journey to the United States becomes the only viable option. Now, the Dream Act does not provide a solution to the problem of illegal immigration, but it does give an avenue for individuals who actually want to benefit the United States in some way. The United States has always been the haven for opportunity and intellectualism, and it has not changed now. If individuals are opt to die for this country or to dedicate themselves to provide solutions, then maybe we should garner this chance to let them prove their ambition. Also, the people who benefit from this the most are the children of the parents who experienced the broken governments and massacres. As for the broken governments left behind in the wake of mismanaged foreign policy and efforts, it will just take time and the will of the people to repair their institutions.

Sources:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a03p.htm

http://libcom.org/history/articles/guatemala-us-intervention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Guatemala#Early_20th_century

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1891145.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War

---

[1] https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a03p.htm

The History of Compromise

The History of Compromise

Americans have always been inclined to join groups in order to fulfill a particular ideal. These groups stem from the abolitionists to prohibitionists, from civil service reformers to civil rights activists. But, it is also important to take into consideration an American inclination to compromise. Even before our modern American government was instituted the federalists and anti-federalists were fighting for their governmental ideals only to produce a compromise: the constitution. Compromise is essential to insure that the best option for everyone can be met. Now, I am going to briefly discuss the most important compromise in America’s history along with the consequences of a political stalemate.

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists

The Federalists supported a strong central government with a national bank and strong ties to England (through the passage of the Jay Treaty). Opposed to the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists supported a decentralized government along with support for France over England. When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 began, both sides argued for their particular ideals. The Federalists denied any plans that did not create a strong central government while the anti-federalists boycotted the formation of any constitution out of fear that it would create a monarchy in the United States. The anti-federalists were strictly supportive of states’ rights under a weak central government (like that under the Articles of Confederation). Though both factions had conflicting ideologies, in the end, a compromise created the U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut Compromise (also known as The Great Compromise) created a bicameral legislature in which the upper house consists of a senate in which every state gets an equal amount of senators (derived from the New Jersey Plan) and in which the lower house consists of a house of representatives in which the amount of representatives is determined by population size (derived from the Virginia Plan). However, the real compromise is located in probably the most referenced part of the Constitution.  Though five of the thirteen states had easily ratified the Constitution, a Massachusetts, influenced by Anti-Federalists, would not ratify the Constitution until the Constitution carried some provisions. These provisions later became the bill of rights. Thus, in the end the Federalists got their central government through the ratification of the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists got a clear protection of their rights through the instatement of the Bill of Rights. Compromise on issues despite two opposing parties or factions is what has shaped the country since the beginning.

Thomas Jefferson: “Half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all”

The Effects of Party Division

It becomes very difficult to find a compromise when there are factions in one group. In American Politics, discussion with two parties can lead to a compromise in the middle. Sometimes the compromise leans left or right due to which party has more seats in congress or in the senate, but for the most part, important decisions end with compromise. However, factions do not only hinder the efficiency of government, but they also cause the opposite party to win. In my opinion, the most significant faction turned third party ticket was the bull-moose party ticket for the election of 1912. The bull-moose party is important because it began long before the actual election of 1912, about thirty years before the election.  By the early 1880s, the Republicans were a powerhouse party. There had been a Republican president in all, but one instance since Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated up until Cleveland was elected. However, there was deep division in the Republican Party at the time between those Republicans who wanted to remain within a system of political machines and Republicans who wanted to see civil service reform. The zenith of the dispute could be seen during the Republican National Convention of 1884. When James G. Blaine was elected as the Republican candidate for the party (a man who had been known for his shady dealings), a large group of Republicans, known as “mugwumps,” briefly switched parties to support Grover Cleveland’s ticket for the presidency. Of course, with this added support, Grover Cleveland won the election to become the only president from the Democratic Party within a period of 44 years (1869- 1913, he won twice for a total of 8 years). The most important symbol to come out of this separated Republican Party was Theodore Roosevelt. The most progressive president of his time, Theodore Roosevelt also experienced a time of Republican political dominance in the first decade of the 20^th century. Upon returning from a trip to Africa, and finding that his friend William Howard Taft’s policies had changed his ideal country, Theodore Roosevelt began the Bull Moose Party (Progressive Party) to challenge for the presidency of the United States once more. The Bull Moose Party called for a national health service, social insurance, an 8 hour work day and women’s suffrage (amongst many other progressive ideals) to fight what Roosevelt thought as Taft’s conservative policies. Ultimately, Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat, won the election once the Republican faithful split the vote between the Bull Moose Party and the Republican Party. Even though Theodore Roosevelt was once a strong Republican, divisions in the party caused him to help a Democrat candidate win in both the election of 1884 and the election of 1912. Division proves to be ultimately detrimental for any side.

Why the Tea Party Faction’s Destiny is Dictated by History

My opinion of the Tea Party caucus in the Republican Party is less than good. However, I’m going to reference the Bull Moose Effect of 1912. The upcoming election is in 2012 and it is exactly 100 years after Theodore Roosevelt split the Republican vote to help Woodrow Wilson win the election of 1912. In 2010, the Tea Party came into the scene in response to what many people saw as a government that was not solving the problems of the economy for the liking of the American people. Remember, in 2010, the Tea Party during the 2010 congressional elections was an inexperienced caucus. Though libertarian type politics had taken form through candidates like Ron Paul, no one had officially taken office as a member of the Tea Party. After the Republicans won the house in 2010, and taking into consideration the Tea Party’s conservative ideals (which showed some change from the classic Republican Party), I could see that there was a possibility that a repeat may occur in 2012. For example, if Michelle Bachman (Tea Party Caucus founder) wins the Republican nomination, more moderate Republicans might choose to vote for Barack Obama, thus splitting the vote amongst moderate and more conservative republicans. A deep division in the Republican party would not help solidify a win.

Lack of Compromise Creates an Inefficient Government

A faction can ruin the aspirations of a political party, but the lack of compromise can destroy the well-being of a nation. The debt ceiling had never been an issue before until now. I guess that in everyone’s minds regardless of where everyone’s ideologies lay, no one could disagree that protecting the United State’s credit and paying off the nation’s debt was a priority. Yet, the country did not have to deal with the Tea Party before. The Tea Party is threatening not to vote to raise the debt ceiling without major cuts in spending. The Democrats obliged. The Democrats offered 1.5+ trillion dollars in cuts; however, the Republicans would not put tax revenues into discussion. It’s not the Republicans fault because I would like to believe that the Republicans would love to compromise on this issue. The Democrats offered trillions in cuts, which is a big step considering the Democrats strongly support many of the programs they are cutting from. Nonetheless, the Tea Party will not budge to neither raise taxes on the rich nor end subsidies on some of the companies with the biggest revenues (oil companies in particular). The Republicans do not want to compromise because they are trying to keep the Republicans united while the more radical tea party members seem to stick to this misplaced idea that no compromise is the most efficient route. The Republican Party has always been known for being a very united party, but after this dilemma, who knows what future of the Tea Party and the classic Republican Party will become. The country was never meant to completely stick to the arguments of one party. Even from the beginning, two opposing parties would come together to create the most efficient solution for the country through elected officials. Like Thomas Jefferson stated before, “Half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all.” Since when was a small fraction of a party given the power to hog everyone’s bread? An efficient government stems from efficient discussion ending in some type of compromise. Throughout American Politics, both Democrats and Republicans have been able to somehow (though admittedly difficulty at times) find a way to defeat strongly opposed ideological views. Our American democracy is simply built on an effort to compromise.

- WSQ

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Breed_(politics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Blaine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugwump

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_presidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Compromise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

What if the USA were to default on its debts?

 What if the USA were to default on its debts?

Recent talk has been harboring amidst the stalemate between the Democrats and Republicans on passing a budget deal. No one knows what a United States in bankruptcy would look like since every government up to the contemporary one have passed a debt ceiling to let the United States fulfill its fiscal obligations. Though much political party fervor revolves around the issue in an ideological storm, the effects of an American default can further be scrutinized through a discussion of Argentina’s economic woes in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Argentina, so far, has been the largest sovereign nation to undergo a default. If the United States is to be next, we should understand any repercussions and even if we should allow a default.

Background

Coming into 1990, Argentina was already facing a heavy round of hyperinflation. The initial measures of the early 1990s (administered by Domingo Cavallo) included a fixed value of the Argentinean currency to the American dollar (at 10,000 Argentine pesos per US Dollar). The initiative was further solidified by La Ley de Convertibilidad in which the Argentine Peso was restored on a fixed rate to the US Dollar. The effects were drastic: inflation dropped and prices were insured while the quality of life amongst Argentineans improved.

The Problems

The fixed rate made imports very cheap. In response, the government increased imports to the point that Argentinean industry decreased to cause higher unemployment. Government spending continued to rise along with internal corruption in the government. The main problem, in my opinion, was Argentina’s dependence on other nations: The peso had a fixed rate on the dollar (so the peso would do well as long as the dollar did well in the market and vice versa) and Argentina could not depend on its own industries since it invested so much in imports (Brazil and Mexico were Argentina’s two biggest trading partners).  The problem with having a fixed exchange rate is that the country has no control over the money in circulation. For example, in the United States, if inflation is high in the economy the government can essentially buy the money back to add value to the money in circulation. Conversely, if deflation is rampant, then the government can attribute more money into circulation. The treasury department has some control over the economy. The main argument against a fixed exchange rate is the lack of control of a country’s economy (Argentina had a fixed exchange rate, thus it had no control of its money). Unfortunately for the Argentinean government, the American dollar was strong in the late 1990s, so that made the peso strong as well in as time when Brazil’s currency fell in value. Thus, Argentinean exporters had a difficult time exporting goods to one of its main trading partners. With high unemployment and less revenue the future of the Argentinean economy looked grim. By December 2001, street protests were common, the president resigned his position, and Argentina defaulted. The Peso immediately fell in value.

The United States

Obviously, the case between the United States and Argentina is very different. First of all, the United States does not operate on a fixed rate. So, the Federal Reserve can control the circulation of money by buying and selling bonds when the situation is appropriate. Second of all, an American default depends on the decision of the government, and it is not an inevitable consequence of bad economic policies. Now, let’s look at some of the consequences of a default for the United States. If the United States were to default, the value of the American dollar would drop drastically. Then, interest rates would increase, making future borrowing more expensive for the United States in the long run.  Also, exports would become cheaper for other countries while imports would become more expensive. But, one must also take a perspective in international relations. Most countries would not be positive to the fact that their assets in American dollars all of a sudden lost a tremendous amount of value. Not only would countries be weary of conducting future business with the United States (seeing that the default was not necessary in the first place), but Americans would experience two economic crisis within five years. I do not believe that the world, nor Americans, is prepared for the effects of the default of the world’s biggest economy. We must withhold the needs of the country before the needs of any political party.

- WSQ

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999%E2%80%932002)

http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science/dp/0393049825

http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Schuler03.pdf