Capitalism presents an interesting dilemma for the white, upper middle class male, a demographic that, unjustly, has been and continues to enjoy the ripest fruits of capitalism.  On the one hand, a person like me (or anyone else who lives in the economically secure class of citizens of a capitalist nation, especially America) can sit back and enjoy and take advantage of the limitless opportunities afforded them.  Thousands of universities, both domestic and international are within their grasp.  After that, countless occupations with career paths that could lead them to even greater heights on the social ladder await.

          &n bsp;

But on the other hand, this education afforded them (hopefully) enlightens them to see the reality of the perverse economic system that got him or her to the position he now occupies.  He sees a system that takes from those who have less and gives to those who have more.  He sees a system that rewards unscrupulous rule-bending and breaking, a system that attacks the family, moral values, the environment, and even exploits every experience in life itself for money and profit.  And while often isolated and removed from poverty and the uncertainty and paralyzing fear that accompanies it, the enlightened and idealistic youth knows it’s out there and wants that wrong righted.  And so naturally, the youth attacks and turns against the system that caused the suffering to begin with.

          &n bsp;

For the idealistic youth, the one as of yet less polluted and less refined by cynicism, these are the two options: resigning to the crooked system, or complete rejection (at least intellectually) of that system.  But history shows us that rejection of the capitalist order results basically without fail in a lower standard of living for everyone, or at least most involved.  So how can the socially-conscious reconcile themselves to reality?

     Read More »

Oftentimes, liberals will offer you big government as the solution to a problem.  On the other hand, conservatives will assert that less—much less—government is the sure fix.  Ronald Reagan would have had you believe that government is inherently evil, that government is itself the problem.  But neither of these approaches have solved much: witness LBJ's Great Society and Reagan's social welfare cuts.  America didn't destroy poverty in the '60s, nor did less government in the '80s cause us all to develop better morals.  So what is government's role in solving the socioeconomic problems, and even crises, facing America?  And yes, we do have crises.  What is happening in the majority-black, crack-ridden inner city?  There's a war going on, and most of America doesn't care.  The Katrina victims haven't been properly recompensed, haven't had their homes, their communities, their cities rebuilt.  And the working middle class is being ravaged.  Jobs are leaving, homes are foreclosing, and a way of life is being torn asunder in a silent, faceless genocide.  

Well let me tell you what's what: it is not the government's job to funnel billions into a new program, staffed by more out-of-touch, hapless bureaucrats.  But neither can the government—and the country it serves—preside idly over humanitarian and economic crises.  We do not have the option to do nothing—for we would become monsters, desensitized to any suffering.  Nevertheless, I can understand someone who is hesitant about the government going out and trying to “fix the ghetto.”  Those that are hesitant about such things are not hesitant because they believe those who live in the inner city deserve an opportunity- less, fearful existence.  They’re hesitant because although we’ve tried, we haven’t succeeded, and we’ve run out of ideas besides pumping more money in, money without any organization or resolve behind it.  We must regain the people’s trust in spending their money, and we must do this by spending it wisely and effectively.  We don’t need a federally-administered “War on Poverty,” nor do we need money taken away from such vital institutions like insane asylums, Social Security, or Medicare.  Government is not the solution—people are.  But the destruction of communities because of disappearing jobs and foreclosed homes cannot be solved by good intentions alone.  The cycles of poverty, addiction, recession, and bankruptcy are indeed vicious, and they are also often strong and seemingly endless.  These things cannot be fought just by nice thoughts if we intend to succeed on a broad scale.  There must be force behind effort, not just willpower on the part of a few, but conviction and action by the many.  This is a sentiment Sen. Barack Obama has been emphasizing during his campaign.  This action will not succeed if not taken up collectively.

What I’m saying in short, is that the most effective ways to deal with poverty, declining economic opportunity, and community rebuilding originate from within the community.  And the most efficient way of administering these solutions is by and through the community.  But one of the unfortunate parts of this approach is that community programs often lack breadth, their ability to reach many, because they lack that one important resource that frequently determines whether a program will last or perish—money.  And that is where we need great politico-economic innovation: combining the fantastic depth and effectiveness of community programs with the more-encompassing breadth and monetary resources of a federal or even state program.

Governments must cease to be a bureaucratic parasite that takes large percentages of our income and then swallows it up to be wasted, misappropriated, and disappear into ineffective committees and useless federal oversight programs.  Instead, government must be a tool that like-minded individuals can use to confront—and defeat—a problem bigger than themselves. 

Isn't it strange that Fox News continues to harp on pastor Wright comments as if they came out of the mouth of Sen.Obama. Fox News has done no research on John McCain or Hillary, only Sen.Obama. For anyone who watches Fox News and has noticed the complete lack of objective reporting your not alone. Fox News doesn't talk much about crazy comments made by supporters of Hillary or McCain. It seems like there is one standard set for Sen.Obama and another low standard set for Hillary and McCain. Fox News is trying to out-right slime Obama in hopes of making Sen.Clinton and McCain more patriotic. Obama is being labeled Un-American because he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin. President Bush wears these lapel pins and what has that gotten us. Just because someone wears a lapel pin at his choosing doesn't mean that person will tell the truth or can give good judgement calls. The video of pastor Wright that everyone has seen is only being played now to scare up votes for Hillary or McCain. I ask myself why is it that some in Corporate America don't want to see A president Barack Obama? Could it be that perhaps they know that thing will change in how the system works for the average American, and they just don't want to see they're power slip away? I think that's a reasonable assumption after all that they've tried to do to destroy Sen.Obama in the people's eyes. Remember Sen.Obama said change wouldn't come easy and that some powerful people in Washington D.C. don't want to give up the power they have to you the people. I ask everyone who reads this just think for a second logically and wonder to yourself why oh why are they getting hell bent out of shape for something that Sen.Obama didn't say and denounced and rejected it when he learned of the comments in question? If the answer is Obama scares them, is that a bad thing after eight years of a "do anything you want to the American people I don't care president". Keep scaring them for me Sen.Obama I love it!!!!

Mutee08

Tuesday we saw full well that polls can be off, very far off. Some people thought to themselves that the race was over and they didn't have to vote for Obama on the actual day. Polls are never and indicator of what can or will happen on the day of the election. Get out and vote if we are down ten points or up ten points. Caucus if we are up ten points or down ten points. Every vote counts. In New Hampshire I still believe that fraud was played on Obama by Hillary supporters who were bent on not losing two states back-to-back. While I expect the recount to confirm the results of Tuesday's election, I worry about not being able to know definitively whether or not Obama will ever really get a fair shake out of what I believe the people of New Hampshire gave him. It's my belief that Obama did win New Hampshire by 5-10%, but people from out-of-state came in to vote for Hillary. I will not linger on this issue, I would rather move on to Nevada and tell the wonderful people of Nevada that you too have the power to vote for change in a week's time. Whatever the polls say before or on the day of the election please get out of your house or apartments and caucus for Obama. Don't get fooled again like I and so many others were into believing that Obama had won New Hampshire before a single vote had been casted. He did win New Hampshire it just was stolen from him like so many other elections of the past memories. Nevada your momment is now. YES WE CAN!!!. Obama '08.

 Mutee08