Rolling Back Your Wages

While you are out shopping for the hottest deals today, Walmart employees will be striking to bring attention to their lousy wages, unsafe working conditions, excessive hours, and sexual harassment. We all know Walmart “rolls back the prices” allowing products (largely made in China and/or sweatshops) to be sold at significantly cheaper prices than competitors. What most people do not know, or choose to ignore, is the manner in which Walmart employees are treated. 

Largely sparked by Black Friday sales, employees are outraged at not having one day off to celebrate Thanksgiving. Many stores required employees to work on Thanksgiving in order to prepare for Black Friday. Of course this is happening in many stores around the country, Best Buy and Target for example, but Walmart employees have decided to come together and make a cry out to Walmart shoppers. For some reason, I doubt Walmart shoppers will understand. One employee stated “...my guess is the people who shop at Walmart might not be as motivated about these sorts of issues as other people.” 

In a letter posted on Huffington Post, one Walmart employee, Toussaint Charbentier, explained that the strikes were not just a result having to work on Thanksgiving, but largely because of the 80% of employees that “rely on the government to survive.” According to Charbentier, the amount of money he makes in a year is close to what CEO, Michael Duke, makes in one hour. This disparity between wages becomes quite apparent when you look at the 80% of Walmart employees that rely on the government through food stamps, public housing, Medicare and Medicaid. A third of employees work less than 28 hours each week, excluding them from receiving company benefits. 

Some credit this low pay to a lack of unions, Robert Reich claims employees have not had the means to fight low wages. By striking these employees are calling attention to the problem but this will not solve the problem. Walmart has filed claims with the National Labor Relations Board to pan the strikes, claiming the striking employees are working to gain “recognition for the United Food & Commercial Workers union.” 

In our current economic state, many Walmart employees have no other option in terms of finding jobs. In many towns Walmart is one of the only options when it comes to employment. But, this goes farther than choosing to work at Walmart. Walmart has put many small retail business out of business, put their own suppliers into bankruptcy to “lower prices” and closed down stores where employees have attempted to organize unions. We should not be standing by encouraging this because we want to pay a few dollars less for something.

6 billion, million, fafillion, shabolubalu million illion yillion...dollars

What would you do with 6 billion dollars? Spend it on an election, of course! This past election cost candidates and Super PACs more than 6 billion dollars. (Thats 700 million more than in 2008.)  SIX... BILLION... DOLLARS... - sorry channeling my inner Dr. Evil. More money than most people could even dream about. 

It is easy to say that the money was well spent if the outcome of the election was what you wanted. It’s just as easy to say the money was a complete waste if you were not so happy with the outcome. But why aren’t more people saying, “This is a ridiculous amount of money!!”

With six billion dollars we could have put 32,000 students through USC, bought 800 million six-packs of Budweiser, paid half of FEMA’s budget for the year, or spent it on something other than commercials. 

Why have campaigns become so expensive? One cause came in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that private interests groups are no longer restricted by spending limits. Groups are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money. So they do.   

Most of this happens in the form of super PACs. Money is raised from corporations, unions, individuals and associations. This money is then spent in support or opposition of a candidate. Super PACs spent 631 million dollars doing just that. 

The Sunlight Foundation calculated the returns on investments for the super PACs spending the most amount of money in this election. Lets break down the numbers from one of the least successful groups and one of the most successful groups. 

American Crossroads, spent over $104 million, with a 1.29% return. Supporting Republicans, American Crossroads was one of the least successful outside groups of the election. They spent $84 million in advertisements against President Obama alone! 

Planned Parenthood Action Fund Inc., spent $7 million with a 97.82% return. Most of the money spent opposed candidates that lost. Three-quarters of their money was spent in opposition of Romney, through online advertisements, phone calls and radio advertisements. 

Most of the money spent during this was on commercials, negative in tone. Former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell claims Republican led super PACs lost because they did not spend their money well. Most of their money was spent on TV ads, which Rendell states, “Were so pervasive, people stopped listening.” Not to mention with DVR and online streaming it is easier to bypass all of those annoying commercials. 

This money game extended far past the presidential campaign this year. Five Senate races cost over $20 million and three House races cost over $10 million. In order to run, you must either have a lot of cash to spend, or be able to come up with huge amounts of money through donations. Either way, running for a political office is becoming a race between the millionaires. After this past campaign season, I can say I am not so sure we really want these millionaires leading our country. 

Alternatively, you could back yourself with a super PAC. With outside funding anyone can compete in elections. But, you often receive more than just money. Along with the PACs you have their expectations and interests. By backing a particular candidate these groups are investing in proposed legislation that satisfies them. 

Now with the election over, critics of super PACs have become abundant. While many seem to be against the PACs, they always end with the notion that the PACs will be even more important in 2016. Why are they just conceding?

How can the PACs that invested hundred of millions just to watch their opposition win be compelled to spend such vast amounts of money in four years? As David Freedlander points out “candidates can use the extra campaign funds to boost their name recognition in early primary states.” So candidates can spend less of their own money and yield similar effects. That seems like a good system!

As of today the Supreme Court has no interest in reopening Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, nor does it seem the ruling will be repealed from the legislative level. Then again, why would the people benefitting from super PAC spending repeal their unlimited budgets?

You're a Socialist?!?!

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.” -- Earl Warren 

Living in America, the term socialism has many negative connotations. During this past election the term socialism was thrown around as though it was this terrible thing, but I am not quite sure this is the case. Socialism is often associated with communism, an ideology America has been against for decades now. Capitalism, on the other hand, is presented as the “best” system, having less flaws than socialism. 

It is difficult to understand any political ideology in totality, especially when there are so many varying genres. In understanding socialism, there are a few key ideas to make sense of.

• Socialists argue against capitalism, for it concentrates power and wealth into a small group of society that controls and exploits the system. This in turn creates social hierarchies, where individuals cannot maximize their full potentials. 
• Socialists believe the people should be motivated to help others. 
• The people collectively own the government, workers collectively own industries and services.
• Production operates to satisfy the needs of the people based on use, rather than profits

Obama in particular has been called a socialist because of the policies he has implemented or intends to implement. In 2008, McCain asserted that Obama was a socialist when he said, “When you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.” Also, Obama’s plans to tax the wealthy to create better programs for lower and middle classes are being called socialist by many of his opponents. 

Not seeing socialism as inherently bad or evil, I find these comments ridiculous. When wealth is so largely divided between rich and poor, I think that it is necessary for the government to ensure all of its people have access to live a prosperous life. By making the lives of your people better you are making your country better. I am not saying that we should adopt a socialist government, but I think that it is important to put terms aside and look at what is best for the people as a whole. We no longer care about our neighbors and instead only care about getting ahead of them and getting a larger piece of the pie. In my opinion, this is cannot be the best way to run a country. 

The Election & Zomney

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

Photo ID Required

“Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process.” -- Hillary Clinton

Come this Tuesday many voters that were eligible to vote in the 2008 presidential election will no longer have this right in an attempt to “crack down on voter fraud.” As of recent there has been an influx of states instituting voter ID laws, particularly by Republican led legislatures that claim to be protecting elections against voter fraud. 

In 2007, an investigation led by the Bush Justice Department found voter fraud to be exceedingly rare, in some states there were zero instances of fraud taking place. It cannot be a coincidence that these laws target groups that predominantly voted Democrat in the last election. 

These new laws will require voters to show a state issued ID or drivers license, which is not a problem for many of us today. Yet, for many the time and money it takes to secure the documents needed to receive an ID is impossible. A Federal Court recently struck down a Texas voter ID law determining it discriminated against poor and minorities. The court found that these many of these groups were without access to cars, making a trip to obtain an ID card burdensome, which infringed on their right to vote. 

Once you consider how rare voter fraud actually happens, it becomes apparent that Republicans are attempting to exclude many groups from voting. This hampers the rights of minorities, elderly, students and the poor. Groups that stand to gain or lose a lot in this next election. Voting is a right as a citizen in this country, to take that right away because someone does not have a state issued ID does not seem just at all. How are citizens supposed to get to a DMV when they do not drive and work 9 to 5 jobs? Making the voting process such a burden does not seem to be the right way to engage the people in politics. 

Not only would these laws prevent many from voting, it could generate lower voter turnout and increase wait times at polling places. Proving you are who you claim to be should not require a state issued ID, it seems that there are many other options we could adopt that would not discriminate against voters.  

Voting is free. It is a right granted to the people. Identification cards are not free. In California an ID card cost 26 dollars. In Kansas, where photo ID is required to vote in this election, cards costs 22 dollars. It seems illogical to make a law requiring one to buy something to use a right granted to them by the government. What’s next, I’ll have to spend money to exercise my right to free speech? Maybe this seems like a huge leap, but as we begin to give away our rights the government does not hesitate to dissuade us, they continue to take them away. 

Of the many issues these laws bring into play, maintaing the status quo is one of the most important. By implementing these laws Republicans are increasing their odds of winning elections. Lets face it, the people most affected by these laws are minorities, elderly, youth, and the poor. Of voters between the ages of 18 and 24, 68% voted for Obama in 2008. 96% of African Americans, 67% of Latinos, and 63% of Asian voters voted democrat. Those numbers can make a huge difference in ANY election. 

Republicans are finally using their brains, creating laws that affect the groups that do not want to see them succeed. Not only do I have a problem with these laws, I am troubled that more people are not aware of the negative affect that will take place after the laws are widely implemented. Republicans argue they are fighting against fraud and non-citizens in the voting booth, but what about all the non-fraudulent citizens that are being denied a vote? We are losing the opinions of large groups of citizens, no matter their party stance, and this is not how a democracy runs, at least not a successful democracy. 

There has to be a middle ground we can reach to prevent fraud but also lessen the burden photo identification can place on people. The Brennan Center for Justice has compiled a list of possible alternatives, some of the suggestions include voter registration databases, requiring each voter to verify the last four digits of their social security number or ID number, or increasing punishment for committing fraud. The current option discriminates against too many voters, making the need for an alternative quite important. 

Funding Creativity

"Politicians don't bring people together. Artists do." -- Richard Daley (former Mayor of Chicago)

The Americans for the Arts Action Fund issued a report card grading representatives based on their support of the arts. It shows that most Democrats support the continuation of funding for the arts while Republicans oppose this funding. Romney has stated in an effort to cut the budget by $9.6 trillion in non-defense cuts, he intends on cutting funding to art programs, including PBS. The problem with this is not that he would be cutting funding, but that the amount of money spent on the arts and PBS is so minimal it would not even make a dent in our deficit. Suzy Khimm explains that getting rid of Amtrak, PBS, and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities funding “would have saved the government about $2 billion this year -- chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.” The amount of funding PBS receives in one year is equal to 6 hours of the defense budget. I am not arguing that the defense budget is unnecessary, maybe somewhat excessive, what I am arguing is that cutting the arts is not the way to reign in overspending. 

Arts in elementary schools have been shown to help develop cognitive and creative skills along with children’s imaginations. Edutopia, the George Lucas Educational Foundation, claims, “Years of research show that [art is] closely linked to almost everything that we as a nation say we want for our children and demand from our schools: academic achievement, social and emotional development, civic engagement, and equitable opportunity.” Art helps children excel in math, reading, critical thinking and verbal skills. In “Why Art Education Matters,” Lynda Resnick argues, “Studies show that art-centered schools outscore non-art-centered schools in academic achievement scores.” In 2009, Michelle Obama hosted a concert to bring attention to the importance of the arts, in her speech she explained,

“We believe strongly that the arts aren’t somehow an ‘extra’ part of our national life, but instead we feel that the arts are at the heart of our national life. It is through our music, our literature, our art, drama and dance that we tell the story of our past and we express our hopes for the future. Our artists challenge our assumptions in ways that many cannot and do not. They expand our understandings, and push us to view our world in new and very unexpected ways...”

Art is such an important aspect of childhood, even with government funding many schools are unable to provide children access to museums or art programs. Groups like Inner-City Arts offer children a creative and safe space to learn about visual and performing arts, their programs are “designed to strengthen language development, develop critical thinking skills, promote literacy and improve learning outcomes overall.” In the Los Angeles region alone, creative industries made up the second largest business sector in 2011, generating nearly one million jobs, according to the Otis Creative Economy Report. Studying art is often seen as pointless and a waste of time, but creative industries have become one of the top industries today. Engaging children in art from a young age will only help them throughout the rest of their lives and lead to furthering our creative economy. 

Constitutionality of DOMA

“Jesus never said a word against homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things - he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.” -- Jimmy Carter

This past Thursday the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional. This ruling was not all that surprising but the fact that the rule came from an extremely conservative judge, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, was surprising to many. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush, Judge Jacobs has ruled that corporations are immune to international human rights law, has argued that attorney’s produce “anti-social effects” when they provide free legal services to those who would otherwise not afford them, and when dissenting has refused to read the majority opinion as a sign of contempt. 

The statements he made ruling DOMA unconstitutional came as a shock to many; he argued for a higher scrutiny when deciding DOMA’s constitutionality, the standard currently used when determining discrimination against sexual minorities is “rational” or “intermediate” basis review. When using a “rational basis review”, many states have found discriminatory laws rational under their current system. In states, such as California, where a higher level of scrutiny has been employed, bans against same-sex marriage have been invalidated. The court has adopted four factors that determine if a group should receive heightened scrutiny. 

1: whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination

2: whether the class has a characteristic that bears a relation to its ability to perform or contribute to society

3: whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group

4: whether the class is a minority or politically powerless

As Judge Jacobs argued in his opinion, “homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination,” homosexuality does not inhibit one from contributing to society,  and “are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public”. In satisfying these factors, the court found a justification for heightened scrutiny. Along with this scrutiny, Jacobs argues any law that discriminates against homosexuals should be treated with “exceedingly persuasive” justification, the same justification used in discrimination against women. 

What does this mean exactly? Frankly, government discrimination against gays would be unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals argued that DOMA was not the right vehicle to be used in  preserving tradition, a goal in which the actual importance has come into question. The government should not refuse recognition of same-sex couples on the claim that family roles and the raising of children diminish when parents are of the same sex. Having such a conservative judge write the opinion on such a case is leaving many to assume the Supreme Court will rule the same way...we can only hope this is the case. 

Words From The Boss

Op-Eds

Death By Ideology

No 'Thomas Crown Affair'

Refreshing the Clean Water Act

"All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream." -- Edgar Allan Poe

The Power of Being Informed

"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." -- Theodore Roosevelt 

I had been thinking about writing a post on the youth vote for the past few weeks, as I finally got around to it I came across an interesting, for lack of a better word, post You Only Care about One Thing??!!! It was riddled with contradictions (it kind of reminded me of someone...) and I found it quite embarrassing as a political science major, as a college student, and as an informed voter. 

I think that it is unrealistic to agree with every part of a candidates campaign, BUT it is extremely unrealistic to vote for a candidate because of one issue and one issue alone!! I do not understand why you would vote at all, not informing yourself of the OTHER issues a particular candidate stands for is one of the most ridiculous things in my opinion. This post reminded me why the youth gets such flack for their participation, or lack thereof, in politics.  

It is no surprise the youth turnout is significantly low, in comparison to voters over the age of 25:

(civicyouth.org)

I think the more important question is why the youth does and does not vote? The 2008 election brought out the highest number of youth voters since Vietnam, some credit this to Obama’s “idealized” campaign, while others credit the dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, Obama’s grassroots organization and the fact that Obama paid so much attention to the youth. 

So what is it that makes the youth disconnect from politics altogether? 

Some credit this disengagement to age -- “The most likely answer is that young adults do not vote because many are still -- in a sense -- children, without adult commitments or responsibilities.” Other arguments center around education, Peter Levine argues that education and social media are incorrectly defining what is important; “The frenetic 24-hour news cycle means that young people hear more about Sarah Palin’s latest Facebook message than substantive issues like health care, unemployment, the War in Afghanistan, and potential school budget cuts.”

Young voters are not being taught how to be responsible citizens, there has been a lack of attention on civic engagement especially when you begin to look at race or class. Levine offers a solution, by having schools, mainly high schools, recognize the importance of civic engagement they can encourage students to engage in politics by reading, writing and communicating important issues. Confidence plays a role in voting, the more confident you feel, in terms of your awareness and understanding of the important issues at stake, the more likely you are to vote. 

Organizations like Rock the Vote and Generation Citizen are attempting to educate the youth on the importance of their vote, showcasing which issues directly affect the youth, and what each candidate brings to the table. 

It is an important election for the youth, 18 to 24 year olds are faced with a 15.7% unemployment rate, even for those lucky enough to have a job or job offers, taking a stand (or caring) for others is commendable. 

Why Snoop Is Not Voting For Romney...

Where Have All the Rebels Gone?

"Our revolution has made me feel the full force of the axiom that history is fiction and I am convinced that chance and intrigue have produced more heroes than genius and virtue" -- Maximilien Robespierre

Compiling a list of incidents of civil unrest in the United States would leave you with quite a lengthy list, but how many of these events are relevant today? It would seem that when it comes to government and politics, Americans have become stagnant and uninterested in changing the status quo. Is there a  way to explain this shift from a rebellious, revolutionary past?

To understand politics in America, one must understand democracy. Unsurprisingly, there are many opinions offering  a version of democracy. Lets begin with historian Robert H. Wiebe, in his work Self Rule ¹, Wiebe breaks democracy into two categories, that of the 19th century and that of the 20th century. In Wiebe’s opinion, democracy during the 19th century can best be represented by America’s original democratic government, the result of a departure from European rule. Government was made up of a nationwide public, that excluded women and people of color, which represented the People in a radical way. As industrialization swept the country, classes began to develop, creating a hierarchy. This gave way to individualism, and brought us into the 20th century, replacing the collective self-governance with the popularity of the individual and consumerism. 

Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America ² not only observed American democracy from a social scientists viewpoint, but from a European viewpoint. de Tocqueville wrote about democracy as France was transitioning from aristocratic rule into a more democratic rule. de Tocqueville found that democracy leads to two distinct stages; the first leads men to independence, which could push them over to anarchy - terming this democratic liberty. The second leads men to servitude, aptly named democratic servitude. Democratic liberty would be democracy in its early stages, power was decentralized allowing local governments the flexibility to solve their own problems based on their personal experiences and nearness to the problem. The later stages of democracy as described by democratic servitude place power in the central government, universal laws and rules are put in place to eradicate problems, these laws are not subject to interpretation by local governments. de Tocqueville argues that a central government frees individuals from their responsibility to find solutions to any given problem they face, which in turn restrains people from developing the ability to weigh options and the subsequent possible effects. 

In Why Americans Hate Politics ³ journalist, E.J. Dionne, Jr, describes democracy in terms of conservatives versus liberals. In Dionne’s opinion, Americans have become disinterested in politics because of the party system, conservatives and liberals are too concerned with undermining the other party that they disregard the actual problems the people are faced with. Politics has become driven by an “either/or” viewpoint, politicians debate over “issues” when they should be looking at the “problems.” Dionne argues that issues divide voters, creating an us versus them politics, if politicians were to focus on problems, solutions would be demanded of them as soon as they were elected. By avoiding the problem, politicians and the government sustain a system where the people are distracted by “phony” issues, politicians argue the same issues continually without searching for new answers or solutions. Dionne also argues that we have forgotten the argument between big and small government as a result of the way politics have evolved, as a society we have come to accept big government and power being in the hands of a select group of people. Although he finds most people would agree on where America should be, conservatives and liberals have made it impossible for there changes to be made by offering a set of false choices for citizens. 

Jacques Ellul, in Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, describes democracy as an ideology and “a myth in that it has an explanation for all questions and an image of a future world in which all contradictions will be solved.” ⁴ (125) Democracy and propaganda form at the same time, propaganda turns an ideology into a myth:

For it is evident that a conflict exists between the principles of democracy -- particularly its concept of the individual -- and the processes of propaganda. The notion of rational man, capable of thinking and living according to reason, of controlling his passions and living according to scientific patterns, of choosing freely between good and evil -- all this seems opposed to the secret influences, the mobilizations of myth, the swift appeals to the irrational, so characteristic of propaganda. ⁵ (233)

Ellul explains that democracy is grounded in the individual, it is a government for the people, by the people, politicians work to receive the most votes from the people (in doing so they use propaganda). But, he also explains that the people are not capable of making the choices government is forced to make, propaganda is then used to give the people an artificial reality, which fulfills a need to participate in government without actually doing so. Propaganda needs to be understood in terms of its two distinctions; agitation propaganda and integration propaganda. Agitation propaganda leads men from resentment to rebellion, while integration propaganda directs men towards desired patterns. Both types of propaganda have been used through mass media and advertising since World War I. 

     

Now, looking at these definitions, is it possible to find a determining factor as to why individuals do not participate in government as actively as they once have, or is there a model that best explains why we have become so content

If we use Wiebe’s description of democracy, we can determine that the public is no longer interested in rebelling against the government as a mass or whole, people are instead concerned only with their individual needs. As long as government satisfies these needs, there is no reason to participate in government in ways other than voting. The main problem with this idea comes into play when you look at the hierarchy that was created by the industrialization. Those in the upper class did not have as much incentive to rebel against the centralized government, as many of them had their hand in government and they were the greatest beneficiaries in the system . For those in the lower classes there was much more at stake by centralizing government, and many riots or uprisings took place during the 19th and 20th century, further proving that people were not only concerned with individual goals. The idea of individualism and consumerism makes more sense today. Looking at a list ⁶ of riots taking place in the 2010s alone, a majority of the riots are related to sports not politics. People will come together and riot or speak out in the name of their football or basketball team, why are they not as engaged when it comes to the rules and regulations that command their daily actions?

de Tocqueville’s democratic servitude provides another example as to why citizens have become complacent, if government is centralized, leaving the decision making process in the hands of the few, individuals do not need to weigh options and outcomes, they merely must accept what the government is setting forth. In effect, by centralizing government, the people not only took power out of their own hands they took much of their decision making abilities out of their own hands. This might better explain why Americans are not actively participating, if the process of making decisions and weighing outcomes is taken away from us, allowing politicians to make all of our decisions becomes effortless. By getting rid of this decision making process, we might also be giving away our abilities to critically analyze government. 

E.J. Dionne, Jr’s writing offers a direct view into the frustrations of American citizens, rather than working to make change or progress in America, politicians continually argue the same points. In effect, Americans give up on the democratic system and often chose to not participate in politics in any form. This inactivity makes people disinterested in politics all together, they find all politicians liars, fools, corrupt, etc. I think this might play a role, but more in terms of voting, I think many people choose not to engage in politics because they feel they are faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils. 

Jacques Ellul offers an interesting look at democracy, instead of just taking democracy as a government by the people for the people, he looks at the tools used to create outcomes best suited for the state:

The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action. It is no longer to lead to a choice, but to loosen the reflexes. It is no longer to transform an opinion, but to arouse an active and mythical belief. ⁷ (25)

By using propaganda, politicians create an atmosphere where the public feel as though they are participating in politics by placing a vote in the ballot box. While in some senses this is participation, it is not the end all be all of political participation as many posit. In fact we are just perpetuating the status quo, we are not challenging politicians or their propaganda to our full extent. 

Robespierre, an influential actor in the French Revolution, might offer some of the most relevant explanations in On The Silver Mark, where he describes passive and active citizens. Active citizens defined as “those able to pay a contribution equivalent to three days’ work were eligible to vote” ⁸ (5), and passive citizens some three million men (out of seven million) that were excluded. Those that did not have money were not able to participate in politics, in some ways this can be applied to politics today. People are able to vote no matter how much money they make but those with lower incomes vote less often and protesting or engaging in a rebellion often times pulls people away from their normal lives and jobs. Realistically, those most unsatisfied with the government are the people who do not have the luxury of skipping work to participate in a protest. According to Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, mass movements require people willing to sacrifice themselves and others to achieve goals, they appeal to others by offering an escape. Hoffer argues mass movements target poor, misfits, former soldiers, or people that feel hindered by government. 

In conclusion, it would seem as though there is not one answer for this lull in participation by Americans. The class division rising out of industrialization has added to a more active participation by higher classes. Centralized government removing the decision making power of individuals could explain why the public does not fight for a localized government to make decisions. Peoples distrust in politicians can largely explain a decrease in voting turnouts and overall disinterest in politics. Propaganda and our inability to detect its uses can be used to guide citizens to make decisions the state deems as the best rather than leaving them to make decisions that are best suited for them as individuals. Class system and economics can also play a role in ones ability to participate actively. While Hoffer’s argument can be used to explain the participation in the recent Occupy movements, it shows how rare such movements are, inciting change in a large group of people from many different backgrounds does not happen as often as it once has in America. 

¹ Wiebe, Robert H., Self Rule. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1996.

² de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. London: Penguin Books, 1863. 

³ Dionne, Jr., E.J. Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Touchstone, 1991

⁴ Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Random House, 1965. 

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

⁷ Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda. 

⁸ Robespierre, Maximilien. Virtue and Terror. London: Verso, 2007. 

just to make you smile

Voting On The Future Of Education

"The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living differ from the dead." -- Aristotle

With the General Election looming over our heads, Californians are faced with more than their choice for president, we have to deal with those darn propositions. Propositions in and of themselves are a tricky matter, as Robert J. Elisberg argues, the proposition system “is based on the premise of full-participation democracy of an informed citizenry...” The problem with leaving the task of voting on propositions to the public is that many citizens vote based off a thirty second commercial they saw on TV, most citizens do not take the time to fully research what their yes or no vote will mean. 

The upcoming vote has two propositions geared towards the education budget, lets focus on Proposition 30; as the Official Voter Information Guide explains, this is a temporary tax to fund education. What does that mean? Income tax will be increased by 1-3% for anyone earning more than $250,000 for seven years and the sales tax (which is currently 8.75% in Los Angeles) will be increased by 1/4 cent for the next four years. The funds generated from the increased taxes will then be used to fund schools, public safety realignment, and other programs the current state budget cannot fund. 

Governor Jerry Brown has been arguing that a yes vote on this proposition would be in the best interest of California and the education system, in his opinion it is “a sound way to balance the state’s budget, stave off devastating cuts to public schools and community colleges and restore billions slashed from public education.” Yes on Prop 30 claims the money generated by this proposition will be put in an “account the legislature can’t touch” and at the end of each year an audit will be available to the public to insure “the funds are being spent properly.”

Those against the passing of Proposition 30 argue that the $50 billion raised by higher income and sales tax are not guaranteed to aid schools, the government will still be able to spend the money how they se fit. No on Prop 30 argues there is no guarantee the revenue will be available for schools, rather than reforming our current system the government is increases taxes that “destroys small business and kills jobs.” 

If proposition 30 does not pass, the Cal State system will face a budget cut of $250 million, having already raised tuition in the past year, Cal States will have to increase tuition by another 5% for California residents and 7% for non-resident students to make up for the loss in budget. In the event that Prop 30 passes, this hike in tuition will not go into effect and the 9% hike that took place in January will be repealed. Meaning every student that paid tuition would receive a refund for the 9% increase they paid. 

Cal State students not only face possible increases in tuition if Prop 30 does not pass, many prospective students are losing out on the opportunity to attend college, it is projected that the schools face “20,000 qualified students turned away, 5,500 class sections slashed, and 1,500 faculty and staff reductions.” 

While a yes vote will increase sales tax in California and income tax for the wealthiest 1% of Californians, the California Budget Project argues “Proposition 30 presents voters with the opportunity to begin reversing a decade of disinvestment in California.” Education funding has been on the back burner in terms of funding for many years now, despite increases in taxes, it might be time to start reinvesting in our future and the future of the youth. 

The Cost of Free Speech

Unbiased news is hard to come by these days, but with the help of the internet via blogs, photos, and videos, it is becoming easier to clue into the events happening world wide that are not covered by the mainstream media. We rely on these independent news sources to go out into the world and capture what is actually happening. As of recent, during the coverage of protests, particularly the Occupy Wall Street protests, the police have been targeting journalists and photographers. Josh Stearns has created a running tally of journalists arrested while participating in protests.

“Between September 2011and September 2012 more than 90 journalists have been arrested in 12 cities around the United States while covering Occupy protests and civil unrest. This number includes an array of people who were documenting and reporting on Occupy events including professional press, freelancers, photographers, independent filmmakers, and citizen journalists.”

The Occupy movement thrived from its use of the internet, with the ability to grow far beyond the reaches of New York City, the internet was used as a catalyst for expansion and awareness. With journalists and photographers being targeted, people far removed from the scene have less access to what is actually happening, a fact the NYPD and police across the country are quite conscious of. Not only are these journalists being arrested, many have faced physical violence and the destruction of their equipment without reason. Journalists photographing or taking video of violent police interaction with protesters often faced violence themselves. Jack Mirkinson with The Huffington Post, wrote about the violence that ensued in November 2011, the height of the protests in New York,

“ Lucy Kafanov, a reporter for the RT Television network, said she was hit with a police baton while trying to film the protests.” 

The First Amendment gives the press specific rights and grants the people the right to peaceably assemble. So how are these arrests being justified? 

Glen Greenwald commented after the UC Davis pepper spray incident;

“Despite all the rights of free speech and assembly flamboyantly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the reality is that punishing the exercise of those rights with police force and state violence has been the reflexive response in America for quite some time.” "

The problem is, as more stories come out about the violence journalists are facing, the less likely people are to go out and participate in social movements, as journalists or activists. If we never challenge this treatment things will never change, we could potentially lose even more of our so called "freedoms. 

The Most Wild Public Intellectual

"We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom." -- Slavoj Zizek

Is the role of the public intellectual all that important in a technologically fueled world with information available at the press of a button? There are many debates considering the future of the public intellectual, Stephen Mack highlights this issue in Are Public Intellectuals a Thing of the Past? Where many are looking at the future of the public intellectual, the so called endangerment of intellectual work, and what society needs to do in order to nurture and sustain the intellectual. But Mack brings our attention to a commonly overlooked aspect, the work of the intellectual:

     “...our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public  

     intellectual is--and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title.   

     Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, 

     irrespective of who happens to be doing it.”

If we forget about who the public intellectual actually is we can turn our focus towards the information they are attempting to educate the public with, the weight of their words become ever more important and the quality of work will be held to higher expectations. The fact is that public intellectuals do not have to be liked, their duty to society is to provide criticisms and to shine light on sensitive topics. 

Slavoj Zizek might be better understood if less attention is paid to who he is as he can be quite difficult to understand, and at times to like. Zizek has been termed “the most dangerous philosopher in the West” by Adam Kirsch of The New Republic. His body of work is not easily understood, as he subscribes to the beliefs of Lacan, continually updating his theories as his beliefs and knowledge evolve. Critics tend to chalk this up to flip-flopping and a not being able to take a side. Zizek aims to question ideologies, rather than answer questions in a traditional philosophical role, he attempts to engage readers in his critiques, in an effort to allow the reader to articulate their own ideology rather than be told what the “Truth” actually is. He explains that if his work was not evolving and changing as he became aware of new facts and lived through more experiences, his work would essentially mean nothing. 

Zizek gained international recognition after the English publication of his work The Sublime Object of Ideology. In this work he questions the “human agency in a postmodern world,” blending psychoanalytic and philosophical concepts into social and cultural issues. Combining the ideas of Hegel, Lacan and Marx, Zizek studies political issues, such as capitalism, and the role they take in society. Working in Cartesian fashion, Zizek employs the idea of “je pense donc je suis,” or for those unfamiliar with French, I think, therefore I am. Rene Descartes brought this idea to the forefront when he began questioning the contemplation of existence, and whether this was proof of something existing, in order to do the actual thinking. Zizek takes this philosophy and brings it into his political theories by looking at the functions of power and attempting to understand political subjects. 

Zizek also studies the terminology and teachings of Jacques Lacan, French psychoanalyst, and his theory that rejected the idea of capturing reality within language, a subject Roland Barthes also writes on, which will be discussed later. Zizek often compares the teachings of Lacan and Marx in an attempt to criticize Marx’s theory of ideology. Zizek argues that Marx had it wrong when he put forth the idea of false consciousness within capitalist societies, in todays world Zizek finds this idea irrelevant. Instead, looking at ideology from Lacan’s point of view, our deep unconscious motivations show that ideology is not irrelevant but reveals a deeper truth, “the Real is not equivalent to the reality experienced.” 

Zizek is most well known for his public arguments against democracy, capitalism, the war on Iraq and the economic meltdown in the United States. His arguments against democracy stem from the inability to control global capitalism, according to Zizek democracy may work on local levels, but when it comes to working globally, democracy often results in an authoritarian rule. While being an atheist, or Christian Materialist as he sometimes describes it, Zizek proposes secular democracy should be the reigning power, having a government that does not infringe on individual beliefs while also not using just one set of beliefs in creating its authoritative power. In a piece written for the New York Times, Zizek stakes a case for atheism and its preservation throughout the world. Zizek has found that the existence of God allows everything to be permitted because we in turn live for the afterlife and earning salvation. When we only do good deeds to fulfill God’s commands we lose the ability to do things simple because they are the right thing to do, atheists, he argues, are able to act in this way. Zizek cites an example of atheist allies for the construction of a Muslim mosque proposed in his home country of Slovenia, in his view, atheists care the most about protecting religious freedom because they are looking at all religions in the form of critical analysis. As long as the government is not built upon the ideals of one religion, which segregates or impedes on the beliefs of other religions, all religions can function within the state equally.

The work of Zizek’s that I am most interested in studying is a speech he gave in October, 2011 at Occupy Wall Street. I first heard the speech in an Art Theory class in which we were discussing a piece written by Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author. As mentioned earlier, Barthes discussed the idea of being able to understand reality within language. Barthes discusses the idea of the authors identity, he found that readers no longer looked at the words of the author, instead they were judging who this person was, much like the Mack’s debate on public intellectuals. Rather than focusing on an authors work, we focus on their personality or biography to explain the text, we are not actually reading their words we are reading their actions. As readers we need to distance ourselves from the author and understand that the words we are reading are not coming from a particular being, they are coming from language. The meaning of words are deep within language and it is impossible for us to become aware of a writers intention because we cannot peg down who is actually speaking, we have lost authority and instead gained a “multi-dimensional space” where meaning cannot be interpreted. Essentially this idea can be related to appropriation, we are never saying anything original we are working within a system in which everything has been said, the words we say are just arbitrarily assigned meaning in which we cannot trace back to their origins. While this is completely confusing, and a bit ironic since Barthes is in fact writing this, what we can get out of this is the idea that reality cannot be completely understood in terms of language. Language in a sense limits our abilities, which Zizek brings up in his speech. 

Zizek participated in a question and answer after giving a speech during the height of the Occupy movement in Liberty Square. In his speech, Zizek positioned himself with the “protestors” of the Occupy movement:

  

     “They tell you we are dreamers. The true dreamers are those who think things can 

     go on indefinitely the way they are. We are not dreamers. We are the awakening 

     from a dream that is turning into a nightmare.”

Zizek’s speech gave me the same feeling Barthes did. He speaks of not being able to imagine the end of capitalism, which is exactly what ruling power wants of us. “We have all the freedom we want. But what we are missing is red ink: the language to articulate our non-freedom.” If we are existing in this language in which we cannot understand reality or articulate our goals, where do we go from here? The only model we know is capitalism, how can we think beyond capitalism when it has taken over every aspect of our lives, it becomes difficult to imagine change when it cannot even be put into words. The way in which we perceive the world is dictated by media and government, he uses examples of Chinese government and what information we have access to through the news. Our sense of reality is in effect even more altered because now we are only perceiving it through an filtered language. 

The problem many have with Zizek are their misconceptions, he speaks of Communism and Socialism, which are taboo words in American society. People automatically term him a Communist, but he is not speaking of Communism as a viable option, he speaks of it as the most ruthless Capitalist system which is what we should be striving against. He explains the thing we can take from a Communist system is its interest in the commons, which is interest in the people, in nature, intellectual property, an ideal not exclusive to Communism. His ideas are grand and question everything we know today which scares people from the questions he raises, what philosopher has not scared the crap out of society? The Occupy movement is continually disregarded because it does not have a proposal for a better system, as Zizek explains we have not yet realized what our system could or should be. In order to find that system maybe we need to go outside of language, disregard the author and the public intellectual. 

Many expected Zizek to give answers or concrete steps that need to be taken to push forward in the fight against capitalism and the two-party system, but he stayed true to his form, instead he raised questions and challenged ideas. We look to public intellectuals for all the answers, but maybe their role should be to inform and critic and analyze in order to fuel an entire public of intellectuals. Maybe we should not be looking to an elite few for the answers on how to structure society, government, economics, etc., maybe we should be taking their ideas and fostering them to educate and work as a larger body of intellectuals. 

Which begs the question(s).... Is the author dead? Are public intellectuals a thing of the past? 

Maybe so. 

How Romney Made His Millions

“People are like dirt. They can either nourish you and help you grow as a person or they can stunt your growth and make you wilt and die.”  -- Plato

After watching the Republican and Democratic conventions I was wondering how much I really knew about the candidates. Other than ones political ideologies, what is it about each candidate that makes us want to vote for them? Myself, not a Republican,  do not understand the attraction to Mitt Romney. From everything I know about him or have recently learned, he is one of the last people I would choose to run the country. Trying to understand what it is people see in him, I have spent the last week reading as many articles about him as I could but instead of learning what it was people admired him for, I learned that he is a walking contradiction that wants to criticize Obama and the government for acts he has performed throughout his own career. 

Many of us have no idea how Romney has actually made his fortune over the years, as the media tends to focus instead on how much he is worth. I know Romney is not the only person to work for a private equity firm, but when he could potentially be the next president I think it is important to understand what it is he did exactly. Matt Taibbi  explains in his latest piece in Rolling Stone Magazine, that the policies and debt Romney is ridiculing now, played a large part in his own success. A man that explicitly says it is “entirely legal and fair” to exploit tax code is not the type of man I am looking for to run the country in which I live. 

Maybe I am too naive, but I am quite alarmed to think that people have completely bought into the bs that is spewing out of his mouth. Do I trust every politician? Of course not, but running for president sets you on a stage in which you should be held to a higher standard. I do not understand how people go nuts for a man that uses American debt to strike fear in his followers, when he has created some of the largest amounts of debt of all time. Imaging debt as a fire that is going to burn our children alive....a bit excessive if you ask me. Okay, so maybe he has produced some jobs in his time at Bain Capital, but most likely, he negated this by destroying thousands of jobs when he burdened small businesses with millions of dollars in debt which then forced them to fire their hard working employees or file bankruptcy. On the brink of his own firms bankruptcy, he cashed in on government bailout that he publicly opposed when it come to helping out the auto industry;an industry that has provided millions of jobs for Americans.  How can he now claim that it is his moral duty to insure the government does not spend more than it has? Apparently his campaign will not be concerned with contradictions either.