The Roots of Islamic Fundamentalism

In the "War on Terror," the war effort is highly concentrated on Islamic Extremists, who hold the political ideology of Islamic Fundamentalism. 

Islamic Fundamentalism is the replacement for classical conservatism, where rather than having the Nobles obliged to lead, we have the Mullahs obliged to lead their people. This all comes down to, if you think of government as a body, and everyone in it, as part of it, who is the head, and who is the toe?  The Mullahs, are the head, and the people may be the toe. The bottom line is, the head can decide if the toe becomes infected with gangrene whether or not to chop it off.

So how does the Mullah decide if the toe is infected? Well, through religion of course. The goal of this life is not to live happily, but rather to live a better after life which will be determined by what you do here. Sound familiar? Yes, it is reminiscent of medieval Europe. And on that note, you will notice, that civil liberties, and human rights do not necessarily equate to a perfect afterlife, so therefore in many cases the Mullahs are left to wonder; do they matter?

The next question is, why Islamic Fundamentalism? Well it turns out, that this in my opinion brutal ideology, is a direct result of "The West's" (Specifically America's) interests. When many countries of the middle east, were coming out of their Colonial British Rule, we find that they naturally turned towards democracy. Ah what could be better, the establishment of the American Dream in foreign lands.

That was until, they democratically elected socialist governments during the height of the Cold War. Thanks to the Truman Doctrine we couldn't let them choose for themselves, so like in the case of Iran, we instituted dictatorships such as the Shah. 

We left them with despair, that the governments of the west would betray them. That in socialism we would overpower them, and that in capitalism, we would continue to plunder the resources of the region, as had been done under British rule.

So the people turned to something common among all of them. That my peers, was Islam, and in doing so they created a political ideology which they felt was all their own neither western nor, eastern, but uniquely middle eastern and of their own accord. 

So in this sense, the Islamic fundamentalist movement is a result of our own actions. I do not like Islamic Fundamentalism, it scares me a bit. Not for its underlying religion, but rather its lack of human rights, and belief that we are in a temporary stage going to a better place. However it is the lack of human rights, I do not like, and I believe that people should have civil liberties available. 

Islamic fundamentalism on many levels is quite brutal. I do not advocate its spread at all. However when looking for the culprit in the creation of Islamic Fundamentalism, and in many cases our "enemy" in the "War on Terror," we need but look in the mirror.

Cut, or Redistribute?

Government spending. This was the issue preoccupying the minds of our two presidential candidates in a debate on foreign policy. However government spending is in fact a big deal, and a key election issue for both major parties.

Why is government spending such a big issue? The main reason, is that government spending is funded by your taxes, and John Mc.Cain would like to cut them, while Obama would like to raise them. I on the other hand would like to take specific spending, i.e pork barrel spending, and redistribute it to stray away from the special interests, and put them into say public works, or part of the bail out. However by tying these up in pork barrel spending we take away from the tax money going to help the people.

So why should we not cut spending though? It seems like a good idea, lower taxes, more money for you right? Wrong. You see in America, there are literally millions of tax free jobs. These are jobs that are part of the government, part of the bureaucracy. Teachers, postmen, and any federal or state employee is paid through government spending. So to cut government spending in our faltering economy means unemployment, and therefore less liquidity in the market.

Obama would like to expand spending, however as McCain made clear Obama has historically supported pork barrel spending. Thus said, we wonder what Obama will increase spending for. He says, provide health care, and lower taxes for the middle class. Do that, however rather than tax anew, take what's already being spent, and shift funds over.

I am neither for the cutting of all spending, nor the increase of spending. However, the redistribution of spending, may perhaps be a safer long term solution when considering the faltering state of our economy.

When do we talk Politics?

What does it mean to "talk politics?" Generally we think politics and we call to mind pictures of presidents, elections, laws, and parties. I believe that there is more to politics, that perhaps much more is political then we are lead to believe.

A traditional definition of politics courtesy of the new oxford dictionary is, "the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially, the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power "

David Schuman defines politics as: "what will I breathe, how will I make a living, and who will I sleep with."  By this definition politics is not just about elections, it is everything action and inaction we take. Politics is more than just elections and running for office, but is your daily life, and thus everything you do is political.

The definition I tend to side with is that of Schuman, that everything you do is an act of politics. That the very act of someone saying, "I hate politics," or "I'm politically apathetic," they are in fact being very political. This in effect may make them more "political" than a democrat or republican as they are professing their discontent with something in the system even if unaware of it.

I believe there is no escaping politics. That every action or statement you make, is political in some way, not in the sense of elections, but in daily life. The desire to get ahead to do better, manifests itself in your actions or inaction's which are themselves political motives.

Politics is not something that comes around once every four years.  Politics, is what you believe in, and what people make you out to be. It is their perception of you that makes your political views and social status what it is. Politics as Schuman said is everything. It is not something you can ignore, because in ignoring it you are being political. A catch 22 it seems indeed, as seemingly every action one makes is for political motives.

So back to the question, when do we talk politics? The answer is not often enough, however the question when do we act politically is always whether we want to or not,

American Idiocracy

Many of us often refer to the average American. But what is the average American?

According to my father there are three types of people, those who do, those who watch, and those who wonder what happened. By my father’s logic, the average American is the one in the middle, the man who watches what happens, the man who watches and says nothing, and the man who listens without questioning.

My father makes a valid point, I too agree that much of America sits and watches, but at the same time I feel the average American surrenders their will to the "powers above him" and in doing so stands by unconsciously aware of his actions, and the consequences, or lack thereof.

Perhaps it is not that the average American sits by and watches, but feels that life is good as it is and therefore has nothing to strive for. The unconscious American knows what they must strive for, but does little to obtain it. In doing so he allows himself to be made a fool by those he believes in, but does not know or understand. This is manifested by a desire to stay where one is, which is generally just comfortable enough in life to prevent uprising, thus allowing those who watch to remain content. This desire to stay secure allows the average American to be ignorant of not only change, but of new ideas, and logic as well.

This inaction has led us to what I like to call the "American Idiocracy." No longer, does the average American think for himself, he is saturated with media, and is taught to believe what he is told. He is told that if he stays in line, everything will remain secure. The average American does not express his own thoughts, but rather encapsulates them so he may ascertain his security. As De Tocqueville said: "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America."

Why does the average man stay silent? Why does he believe what the government tells him and remain ignorant for himself. Generally when speaking of the average American, we create a person who is among other things, wholly vacuous, rather harmless, a pawn, who is fine with being manipulated as he is to blind to see it. And it is this manipulated, and doltish man/woman, who we must rely on to choose our future. (Thank you Ohio)

Am I saying that all men are not created equal? Yes, I am. All men are not created equal, all men are men, who do what they know will bring them relative comfort and security in life. It is this comfort and security, which they fear losing, that allows them to be manipulated. And in doing so this manifests the ignorance that once ingrained is a powerful weapon of political repression not by the state, but rather by oneself. It is this inbred ignorance which causes the average American to stay where he or she is, it is this ignorance that prevents one from thinking for himself, and in doing so makes the average American fit the mold of self serving, ignorant, and wholly unaware.

Can the average American become the above average, or even the elite? Yes, but the key is open mindedness, acceptance, and advocacy which as much of a melting pot as we seem to be, is lost in the ignorance of inflamed passion and rage which the proletarian is trained to act on.

The American Idiocracy has the little "power" given to the people, should it stay this way? And where is the mass of the population in their political views? The answer is Democrat and Republican, however the mass views these two as distinctly different ideologies. They are both liberal, but the people have been trained to see them as polar opposites. Power is based off the Average American, however it is not based off the individual, and free flowing thought. It is this political manipulation, and the repression of thought that keeps the average American ignorant, and inactive and thus, average.

What is Human Nature?

To be honest i do not know the answer to this question. There was a time though when I was sure I knew what human nature was. I would have described it to you as, overall bad, that man's goal was self serving, and that the end goal of human nature was to self serve in order to move on into the elite status we all crave.

However this summer, I took a course and know longer necessarily believe that. If we look at what we say about human nature, we would often say, that it is selfish, hedonistic, full of cutthroat ambition, and that we as individuals are not any of the traits previously stated. Who are we to say that humans on a whole are bad, but that we are different, that we are not bad, that in effect we do not share the curses of our society. And if human nature was innately evil, then why would we care that we were not that way, that we are somehow different. If human nature is evil then we wouldn't want to be made separate form it, we would not desire to be viewed as righteous.

So do we know what human nature is, or have we been taught what to believe? "Life liberty, and the pursuit of property. " John Locke said that on human nature, and our founding fathers were directly influenced by that. They were worried that the "tyranny of the majority" might overtake the dissent thus instituting a monarchy. They were not trying to limit the pursuit of property though: perhaps we can best see Locke's impact in the protection of their own property, preventing debtors governments, and social movements. However it is with this thought of human nature that we are not only governed by, but brought up into.

The question I truly ask is not what human nature is, but rather what have you been taught to believe in. Do you really believe that human nature is evil. That we would all kill each other unless governed. That human nature is bad, and that therefore you need government, not to protect you from outside evils but rather yourself. If we look at the period of time before the invention of agriculture, we generally had peace, people lived in a communal setting where egalitarianism was not a desire, but rather a fact. Perhaps human nature is not evil, but rather it is the manipulations in thought and upbringing that have led us to believe so that human nature is evil.

What is human nature? If there was a great flood of the arks proportions, would the remaining humans fight one another or come together? Would we live for one another, or for ourselves? Would we care for our petty desires, or for the group as a whole. I do not pretend to know that human nature is evil. That it is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and nothing else. Is this what you believe or what you've been taught to believe?

The secret Message in Ferdinand the Bull

The story of Ferdinand the bull, is that rather than fight in the bull ring, a solitary bull would rather sit by, and smell the flowers. What does this show us? Several things I feel. Firstly Ferdinand the bull neither initiates nor accepts the provocations of the matadors to fight. Instead he chooses peace, the desire to be one with nature, and to end the bloodshed. The act of not fighting can be seen as an act of symbolic speech wherein Ferdinand in not fighting is a conscientious objector to his societal status as a bull and that his smelling the flowers is really an act of civil disobedience.

Perhaps it is this civil disobedience that is what allows for peace, and the book shows that to maintain peace, occasionally civil disobedience as a desire for peace must be made visible. Ferdinand also shows us that peace allows for a happy ending, as Ferdinand is in fact one of the few bulls who makes it out of the bull ring, thanks to his resistance.

Call me Crazy for distorting this message out of a children's book, but I'll be sniffing the flowers.

Country First?

Up until this point, I have not commented on the campaign or the messages of John McCain. However when watching the Republican National Convention (RNC) I noticed the repeated theme and new slogan of John McCain was "Country First."

To many people they may have thought, what a patriotic, pro-American, positive thing to say. I personally took the motto "Country First," as a very nationalist, not anti-American, but rather perhaps a bit of a fascist thing to say. Yes, that’s right, country first, over its people. Let us sacrifice for the country!

I respect John McCain’s service record. In fact I admire his sacrifice for his country. However we have become a consumer driven country that has thoroughly invested into the military industrial complex. In doing so we no longer feel it is country first, but rather individual first. Perhaps it is the ways of old in "Country First" that McCain finds support for his new slogan.

In his acceptance speech Obama, said that we all put country first. I feel this is an inaccuracy, we have learned to put individual first, and to forget about those who we do not benefit off of. We do not put country first. However our government should not follow a policy of country first, but should institute a policy of people first.

The question may arise; how is country first different from people first? Country first puts the needs of the country above the needs of the people; these needs are not synonymous. The needs of the people ought to be what the needs of the country are. However far too often the people are ignored, and a few special interests are placed above those of the general population.

What is it that really bothers me about "country first?" It's is the nationalist undertone, that no matter how you feel, the betterment of your country should precede the betterment of the individual, and the objectives of the people in mass. In putting country first, we deny our own desires.
Maybe I'm too much of a consumer to see the value in putting my country first. A representative government as ours claims to be, should not chain its citizens in servitude from which they may not break free, but rather our government should be in service to its people. With a slogan of "Country First" on both sides, surely we are left to know that we will continue to represent the interests of a few, while the general populace remains ignored, abused, and in servitude.

What If The Majority Of Citizens Didn't Vote?

What would happen if 51%< of all eligible voters did not vote? Would that, make the government illegitimate as the majority of people did not vote for that government to be  in place?

Is It Really The Oil Companies Fault?

According to John McCain we have become a "Nation of Whiners." Obama has retorted that we are not, and things are genuinely bad at the moment. However is that really true, are we whining? I feel that at least when it comes to gas prices we are.

It is not the oil company’s fault, but rather ours. The main complaint with the oil companies seems to be that they are making "windfall profits." But what defines a "windfall" profit?

It seems that a "Windfall" profit has become a profit that is greater than the revenue needed to keep a business going. However is not the ultimate goal of profit to be able to stay in business? I personally see this as the goal of profit. I find it sad that here in America the land of "equal opportunity" people are complaining about an industries profits when here they should have the equal opportunity to build their own industry if aptly able.

Note that I am in fact not advocating the "trickle down effect." However I am saying that we are complaining over the success of one industry while no longer striving to recreate that success in our own lives. It can be duly noted that the corporate executives in the oil companies have in fact gained personal wealth. However how much of this actually has to do with consumption as it does inflation. Could the prices have been made lower via increased drilling several years ago? Yes, would it have been profitable, no.

If we look at the recent drilling activities in North Dakota, we are left to ask the question; why are they drilling now? Why not three years ago? Very simply as the price per barrel went up the profitability went up. We all know that labor costs are less outside the U.S so why wouldn't they wait until the price was high enough that they could turn a profit off the oil they knew was there. Does it help gas prices now? No, but it does allow the oil companies to maintain profit and thereby giving us one sector of the economy which does not seem prone to an impending recession.

Furthermore I hear of the oil companies funding studies for alternative fuels, and people go well why would we trust them. They say that the oil companies are afraid of alternative fuels, that they know they'll put them out of business.

This is not the case though. The oil companies are not in the business of oil, but rather they are in the business of energy. This means that to continue to make profit they will be the companies to invest and push for the innovation of new alternative fuels.

Are there times when the oil companies policies are a bit sketchy, yes. Do I feel we regulate their business practices enough? No. However I am tired of people complaining over their profit when really if we want to switch to alternative fuels it is big oil that will lead us there. Lower gas prices would be great, however if we look at the "windfall" profits, are they so extravagant when that profit will yes, go to execs, but it will also go into research and development, taxes, and may eventually be the key to seeing lower prices at the pump.

My short views on Trust

Perhaps the reason we do not trust, is not that we are afraid of losing our trust in man, but rather that man will lose their faith in us.