Why Race Matters in our Democracy

I've studied anthropology. Unlike in political scientists (and pretty much everyone else), the vast majority of anthropologists don't believe in the term "race." It is an artificial, a priori term. The proper term is "ethnicity." But, either way, ethnicity or race - it doesn't matter what term you use - matter in American politics.

Politics is all about the issues. How many jails we build. How many schools we build. Where we drop our bombs. Where we make our bombs. We are essentially electing people to decide these things for us. It is a division of labor. Certainly, we would be happen to choose for ourselves, but we have other shit to do.

So it becomes necessary to elect people who are most like us, people who are more likely to do what we do. And, to this extent, race matters.

We make decisions based on our socialization. We are socialized based on race. And thus, we make decisions based on our race. It is that simple really.

Socialization forms a world view. Based on what we've experienced in school, at home, at work, in Church, Synagogue, Temple, Mosque, we have a sense of what we are here to do on this planet. We form a sense of good and bad, beautiful and ugly, friend and foe.

Many people still believe that "Islamic" terrorism or "radical Salafism" is a religious movement. Those who are trained in politics understand that there are more secular forces at work in the formation and organization of certain violent social movements in the Middle East. This difference in understanding alone is a starting point for two divergent policies.

But just as education can create this division in worldview, race can too. I don't necessarily mean in understanding the culture and history of the American ghetto - although that is a very real example. An example that points to necessity for racial representation. No. I'm talking about something more sinister.

Logic and emotion guide along the policymaking process. Some policies (and social movements) are forged with too much logic and not enough emotion or too much emotion and not enough logic. Though it certainly is better to err on the side of logic, the best policies come from a place of high intensity, a place of solid reasoning and immense need.

High intensity is completely lacking in our current representation. Where have the activists gone? There are only paper-pushers and democratic royalty left under the dome in DC.

This is why race is so important in the American democratic process. There is only very little about Social Security that can get people riled up. What's left in taxes? Foreign policy is completely an arm-chair game.

No white man or woman knows of the pains of being a black male in the United States. No third- fourth- fifth-generation American understands the humiliation of imperialism. Yet these are the people who continue to write our policy. What does a 60-year old white man born into wealth know about random searches in airports or on the highway - what will stop him from diluting his bill and boasting his support for colored America? What does anyone who is running or will be running know about forced subjugation, occupation, culture-termination?

Good sound policy is more than about logic. It is about emotion. Not only on the side of the policymakers - to fight to the end for full measures. But to understand how policies will effect the powerless, the helpless. The source of this emotion is race. There are certain things that only black men understand, things that only Muslims understand, things that only people from the colonized world can understand.

Enough of this rule from the top. It is about time for more color in DC. Not the Ivy Leaguers. Not the blue bloods. But the bearded man who is repeatedly hustled in airports. The black man who is stopped randomly in middle of the street.    

Why Gun Bans Aren't Enough

Many people under-estimate the value of psychology (or psychiatry) in the gun violence debate. The mainstream is concerned with gun control - and not simply banning of all weapons (or even all guns). The debate has skidded off to this disturbingly moderate conversation about whether or not to check a gun buyer's criminal background. Not only are these moderate reforms shaky, they also suggest that there's a/are bigger problem(s) in our society. Problems that we as a society seem to be ignoring -- or obfuscating.  

The fact that we don't have this kind of reform - moreover, the fact that anyone would be against it - is perplexing, troubling but not all that surprising, nonetheless, considering that we're in the 21st century (a century chalk-full of not just violence done in far away lands). Our century - and our country - has plenty to offer in terms of domestic terrorism, murder, suicide, and the like. For all ends and purposes, however, let's assume this reform is taken and, taken a greater risk, let's assume it is fully enforced.

In this case, people with criminal records - kids who've done pretty serious crimes and who've lived pretty disturbed lives aside, since their records would have been expunged - wouldn't be able to buy guns legally (chances are: gun dealers on the black market will not obey the law). People who don't have criminal records will, however, be allowed to buy guns. So what're the assumptions we're making, besides the first two, which perhaps are risky. People without criminal records will not use weapons to commit crimes. As we've touched upon, this means children, even if they have done some serious crimes and lived seriously disturbed lives, (or even adults who lived such a life as a kid) would be allowed weapons, despite the risk they pose upon themselves and the people around them. The second: all, or at least the majority of, people who perpetrate gun violence have committed a prior crime. This is a little broader then the our previous assumption, but it is a little different. To build such a claim, or to believe in such an assumption, we'd have to go into statistics, and yet numbers aren't enough. We'd have to prove that the numbers actually mean something. But to disprove it, we can take a few logical steps. Why do people who commit previous crimes commit them? There is a motive. Perhaps, and indeed this is a possibility, people with this motive will use said motive to commit a crime. But if we follow with this logic, then we shouldn't forget one slight detail. If a person has a criminal record, then they were processed by the the criminal justice system. This means, an attempt has been made to push them away from ever committing a crime again. Nevertheless, recidivism is a real issue. And plenty of ex-cons commit a crime again. But how many of these criminals commit a more violent crime the next time? How many ex-cons shoot out a school or a college or take down a military base or kill their 2-year-old son or kill a cop's family after committing a first crime? Indeed, not only have these ex-cons faced the criminal justice system (and hopefully have been pushed from recidivism) their motive has been reduced to shreds. Suppose their motive hasn't been destroyed - makes you wonder what they're doing in the public. Criminal background checks are necessary - but they're also a cop out maneuver. Not only does this obfuscate and perpetuate the true problems in our society - our bad criminal justice system, economic deprivation, perhaps Cornel West's "nihilism" - they don't necessarily detract potential killers from doing gun violence. This, statistics prove.

In addition to the "criminal checks" debate are others: e.g., the NRA's proposal to arm everyone. Not only would they be arming the dangerous, they arm the potential victims. But, alas, they create victims - and this is a paradox they don't understand. But, there is a striking story - or, since I'm paraphrasing, case - we need to study. Two men attempt to break and enter a house. In the house, a mother is serving dinner to her kids. She supposedly hears the men, gets up, grabs her gun. She shoots one fatally and the other, noticing the violence, runs away. The woman and her children were saved, perhaps only because she had a gun. But, as a society, we must ask not wonder about the saving, but the preventing. How do we prevent not only the breaking and entering but the death of a man. In other words, we must ask: why did the two men break and enter in the first place? To rob the woman, to rape the woman, to kill the children? Who knows? But one thing is for sure: the issue is either economic - the criminal is a have-not -  or psychological. The criminal is a psychopath, perhaps a sociopath, clearly psychologically abnormal.

This fits this scenario but is this a general rule? To answer this, we must go back to statistics. But what's the alternative? Are there killers who are psychologically stable? 15 percent of US adult population has some kind of mental disorder. And according to an interview of Paul Appelbaum by HuffPost's Jefferey Young: "'Most gun violence is just not committed by people with mental illness,' he said." Appaum, like most Americans engaged in the gun violence debate and well people in general, seems to be too focused on one issue, the way things are. And, indeed, this creates some serious fallacies, logical and statistical. Are we just interested in people who perpetrate gun violence, or in the concocted motives to use such a violence, what makes people dangerous, what makes people likely to use gun violence? The logic is very clear. Most people don't want to kill little kids. Most people don't want to kill their kids. Most people don't want to "terminate your families" - from Christopher Dorner's Manifesto. But they do. And they do because they clearly have mental illness. But Appelbaum knows this. He's not referring to the baby-killers, the child-killers, or even the family-terminators. By "most gun violence," Appelbaum is perhaps referring to the vast majority of such violence: kids in gangs, domestic violence, and the like. But, alas, no, he's not. Young write: "No thorough study exists establishing a connection between mental illnesses and mass shootings, Appelbaum said. Neither does a database of mass shootings that would allow researchers to flesh out a useful profile of those seemingly prone to horrific violence." This doesn't mean anything! And Young explains one reason why, but the larger reason is this: if they had been diagnosed and treated for mental disorders would they, the killers, have committed such a crime? For the most part, no. Similarly: if the criminal justice system does it's job, would there be so many repeat offenders? By definition, no. If curing crime, i.e., preventing crime (or at least those who've committed crime) from committing it again is not the purpose of the CJ system -- what is? 

Let's go back to Appelbaum's first observation: there aren't any studies being conducted/have been conducted to connect mental illness with gun violence. Is there no research being conducted on the matter? Lo and behold, there is. On Feb. 11, 2013, in Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA there will be a conference, entitled "Facing the Crisis: Mental Illness and Gun Violence." Among those speaking are dozens of police officers, psychologists, and directors of public agencies. Perhaps we won't have a solid answer until we hear these members of the Pasadena community speak but one thing is certain as of now: there might be a link between mental health and gun violence. It is, according to Dr. Appelbaum, an unexplored area. Regardless, there is nothing much else we can do. No amount of checks or bans will tackle the source of the issue: the motive -- which, coincidentally, begs what sounds awfully like a psychological question: why do people kill others? There seem to be two explanations: economic and psychological. Either way, the real method for change seems to be something bigger and broader and, yes, more difficult than what's on the table. Perhaps we'll have to make serious reforms in the CJ system. Perhaps we'll have to improve our public psychological care. Or maybe it's a matter of totally economic transformation. Regardless, as we've found out, it's bigger than taking a bunch of guns off the street.           

And the battle continues - Good thing for Egypt

Revolutions and reform need good guys and bad guys. The good guys fight the bad guys who're engaged in wrongdoing. This is a matter of accountability. Having an establishment at which fingers can be pointed gives it, the establishment, neat steps to take to improve. If there isn't a distinct two-group divide, such as the one between protesters and the establishment - that is, if there is a milieu of protesters in a society or a population full of the government's men - there is no engine of change, no object that can change; in all, there will be no change. Egypt under Mubarak gave us a glimpse into what good guy vs. bad guy looks like. With the "president" deposed and Egypt then under military rule led by former vice-president Shafiq, protesters  were given a target, sure. Shafiq's reformation of the constitution, for instance, which gave executive, judicial and legislative powers to the military council, indeed, even after the election, constructed this target. But the military council as a target was forgotten or, at least, was put on the back-burner as various political factions formed, the two most prominent of which are the party led by ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood. But there were other clashes, as well. Salafi Muslims attacked the Coptic churches of Imbaba neighborhood, Cairo. Regardless, there was a distinct drop in solidarity from the days of Tahrir Square - though, like the 21 November protests of solidarity, in which Coptic Christians stood in guard as Muslims did prayer, there were glimpses. In the post-Spring Egypt, or at least in this new Egypt that has passed through this phase of marked solidarity forged by a clear sense of accountability and another phase of antagonism with a semi-fixed accountability, the people have become creatures of democracy - while acting to preserve and/or create policy they desire, activists are not calling for the destruction of a part or the whole government - while the establishment refuses to do it's part in the democratic process.

Much like before, today's Egypt has a target, an accountable establishment, the Mursi government, i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood political party. However, the mechanism for holding it accountable has been far less organized or built-in than promised. Mursi, in his early days as President of the nation, had promised to build a cabinet that crossed Egypt's vast demographic spectrum. In return, he had appointed a Coptic intellectual, Samir Morcos, and Sukaina Faud. Whether or not the math suggests it, this sort of representation in the cabinet does not hold water for many Egyptians. Mursi's promise of tolerance has been dramatically cut short. Despite his appointees to cabinet, the PM and his government has distanced itself further from this goal. Mursi has given himself a tremendous set of powers, while pinning a referendum of a hastily drafted constitution.

In this political climate, a movement has emerged against Mursi and the MB. Led by the likes of former IAEA chief ElBaradei and former presidential candidates, Sabahi and Moussa, the secular left has formed the Salvation Front, gathering within it not just the elite, as MB has claimed. Indeed, SF has become a popular force, evidenced recently by the protests it organized outside the presidential palace. Shockingly enough, the reaction of the MB and the establishment as a whole has been to repress these movements, much like their ancestors, rather than to allow them, the movement's people, to help forge policy and reforms. The state police had thrown tear gas and engaged in violence against a growing body of protesters in front of the presidential palace. Yet, more importantly, the prosecutor-general of Egypt has indicted the chief architect of the SF movement, ElBaradei, with espionage and a Zionist-inspired conspiracy - all in all, a plan to overthrow the president of Egypt.            

Egypt's people have risen in democratic fervor against their still backwardly authoritarian government. While the people engage in the SF movement and hold protests demanding a policy, the government refuses to pass said policy. Certainly, complacency is the essence of democratic government. Philosophical and more rigid principles aside, this is also perhaps the most logical reaction to such an overwhelming movement, notwithstanding its simplicity. Yet the establishment purposefully does the more difficult, complicated and even expensive action. It represses the dissenters. Thus, the government continues a tradition long held in human history, repression, a more complicated reaction than complacency that does only one thing and Egypt is an exemplar of this phenomenon. While repression perpetuates for a limited time the government's agenda, the cigar finally goes to the people. Indeed, once they fight, the people win, so good guy/bad guy is the basic template required of a good revolution/reformation. But there is a certain second phase: governmental complacency. Though MB's Egypt is yet to see this, it sure is a-coming. It's in the Egyptian people's blood, their recent ancestry       

Mursi and the Egyptian Parliament

In an essay, "Here Comes the Sun," that I wrote for the Hands Along the River essay contest, I attempt to explore the Egyptian Revolution to find a message, a calling, a lesson of some kind for Americans. The best American counterpart, the vessel for the lesson, if you will, that I could find was Occupy. Anyway, in this essay I stated that there are three things to consummate the spring revolution - that is the revolution by reform, a revolution by accountability, a transition between the dark winter and the liberated summer. And indeed since the election of Mursi as the president of Egypt, this transition has been re-established - after, of course, the Tahrir Movement (remember when all those students, those housewives and lectures alike gathered in the al-Tahrir (Freedom) Square last year?). Many have doubted this conclusion. They cite the apparent illegitimacy of the new president - listing out stats and making the boldest comment: voters simply didn't want Shafiq. Whatever, the case, Mursi's election is the third segment of the Egyptian Revolution - following the period when the revolution was in danger and reflecting the period in which the Revolution was born.


It's simple really how Mursi's been able to do this, how the Muslim Brotherhood's been able to do this. They grasp the biggest vote-gatherer - after all, aren't political parties vote-based corporations - accountability. That's right. They hold themselves accountable. And this is all that the Egyptian Revolution, at least in its heyday, has been about. It is a point that I've made in my essay. Was it a coincidence that the Revolution snaked down after Mubarak's resignation? No. The people simply didn't have anyone to hold accountable. With everyone thinking he could rule the country, why would there be a reason to hold anyone accountable. And with Tahrir becoming a ground upon which to protest the election outcomes and not the establishment's policies - it is obvious why there was such a depression in the success of holding Shafiq's Military Council accountable. No one was.


And whether the Brotherhood has visualized this or not, it is using it as a weapon in engaging in Egyptian politics. Mursi has promised to have non-Islamist, i.e. members of opposition parties, in his cabinet. Essentially, they will be in charge of telling the Muslim Brotherhood that they are doing so-and-so wrong. And being in such a high position to do so, surely the media will be their backing, if it comes to that.


But what's especially astonishing about this development is the practiced theoretical principle in political science - that a plurality in contesting parties is the key to democracy. The idea is obvious, and it is also one similar to that of the sort of omniarchy I've discussed innumerately on this blog. With so many parties waging electoral war against one and another, opinions are forced to optimize - meaning that the best solution to the worst problem will be the end result. And this doesn't necessarily have to be a thing about the majority or really any part of the population. But it is also something to do with the liberal nature of the democracy. With competitive elections, accountability is assumed. There is a challenge to the majority party and, moreover, that challenge comes from the party. Thus, there are two points to be made. This sort of economy of elections that we've discussed that forces the Brotherhood to hold itself accountable has compelled it to take into consideration the opposition's opinion. But if the Brotherhood for some reason becomes a monopoly, that opposition would be able to contest for seats and, again, by rule whoever promises accountability will win.


That said, I believe the revolution in Egypt can been re-initiated. As soon as Mursi puts in the opposition members in his cabinet and his order for the parliament to be re-established are fulfilled, accountability will be king. The aforementioned cycle - if the Brotherhood gets to comfortable and neglects accountability, accountability will, without fail, show its head - will be consummated and thus there will be no such thing as an autocracy. But, alas, this is still a tall order. Politicians are politicians. And politics are politics. Even if parliament is re-established, it is still a Brotherhood majority. And, beyond his word, there is no guarantee that Mursi will include non-Islamists and women in his cabinet. It hasn't happened yet. But it is something to look forward to and, thus, Mursi is certainly in a way the Groundhog - whose shadow may very well bring an end to these terrible past months of back-steps. It could bring Egypt forward - to where it was - and more. 

Motyl's Conception of an Empire and its Global Implications

Admittedly, I haven't read my professor's book "Imperial Ends." But it supposedly deals with the rise and fall of empires through theory. Wikipedia writes:

 "This relationship he describes as an incomplete wheel: there are hubs and spokes, but no rim. Empires, in this theoretical concept, depend on this relative absence of relationships in the periphery, the core's power partly dependent on its role as a neuralgic center...
Motyl also posits varying degrees of empire: formal, informal, and hegemonic. In a formal imperial relationship, the core can appoint and dismiss peripheral elites, obviate any external agenda or policies, and directly control the internal agenda and policies. In an informal imperial relationship, the core has influence but not control over appointing and dismissing peripheral elites, direct control over the external agenda and policies, and influence over the internal agenda and policies. Finally, in a hegemonic relationship, the core has no control over appointing or dismissing peripheral elites, control over the external agenda, influence over external policies, and no control over the internal agenda or policies.
Empire ends when significant peripheral interaction begins, not necessarily when the core ceases its domination of the peripheries. The core-periphery relationship can be as strong or weak as possible and remain an empire as long as there is only insignificant interaction between periphery and periphery. Many empire observers make the distinction that most of them end through some policies or strategies based on arrogance or national hubris, accounting for a popular opinion that empires implode on themselves as opposed to suffering defeat from an outside enemy." 

 I was curious - so I asked, "how's this relate to the British Raj?" In regards to the core-periphery relationship vis-a-vis the Raj, say we mean the whole Empire. By asserting - and, of course, keeping in mind these aren't Dr. Motyl's exact words - "[e]mpire ends when significant peripheral interaction begins," does that mean the whole empire must fall once "peripheral interaction begins?" If so, how do we explain the gradual deterioration of empires - a deterioration that all of the European colonial empires underwent at one time or another?

If this is what Dr. Motyl's theory implies, then it contradicts history. Consider the British Empire. The Americans won their independence in 1783, the Egyptians in 1867, the South Africans in 1910, India/Pakistan (Bangaldesh) 1947/8, and Nigeria 1960. There are, however, certain observations that are to be made. First, these latter colonies weren't British colonies at the time of America's colonial period. There couldn't have been any "peripheral interaction," and, even if there could have been, it wouldn't be of much use. Second, there was very little interaction between African and non-African colonies, yet, it seems, the British empire fell with the toppling of Hong-Kong, the only British colony in that part of the world albeit Malaysia and Fiji.

But, based on this brief synopsis of "Imperial Ends," there seem to be at least two elements missing - what is interaction between peripheries and what is a periphery. Even if peripheries exist in continuous empires just as they do in discontinuous or hybrid ones, then the peripheries of the British Empire (even if you'd like to make a distinction between the American-age one, call it the first empire, and the Indian-age one, call it the second one) do not seem to be abiding by this rule. Motyl's theory makes more sense if it is interpreted to mean empire ends when continuous peripheries - meaning, peripheries that share borders - interact. Or, in the case of India, when distinct peripheries are made.

As we all know, India during its colonial era wasn't considered by mainstream opinion to be dual or to contain0 two British peripheries. Nonetheless, these peripheries were made - be it by British policy, nationalist politics, or communal opinion. Bose and Jalal in "Modern South Asia" go so far as to say the British became desperate to quit India before nationalist demands become more radical or communal violence becomes more dangerous. Indeed, these things can successfully be traced to a distinct divide, the cultural creation of two nations - Hindustan aka India and the new periphery Pakistan.

That's not to say, however, that these two peripheries hadn't been interacted all that time before the violence and the nationalist politics. Upon the arrival of the British, paintings of Rama and Krishna were being done in the Persian styles practiced in the Mughal court. The only thing that the 20th century added to this relationship was an overdose of violence, an antagonism instead of cooperation.

This might just be a "fair enough" conclusion to Dr. Motyl's lofty conclusions, but Empires end not when the wheel invests in a hub - though this might be a companion development. Empires end when those in the driving seat (the core) fear that its days of dominance are limited or are unnecessary. Certainly the Americans, the people of the former Soviet Union, and the Indians interacted with their respective continuous peripheries; however, they interacted in different ways.

All of them brought down the Empire in question. The Americans fought a war. The non-Russian members of the Soviet Union de-legitimated Moscow and the central party. The Indians fought within themselves into such a state of chaos that the British no longer saw this land as the land of plenty. But what describes England's revoking its African empires? It certainly was not an interaction between peripheries. The British had political issues that needed to be dealt with and, more importantly, Nigeria just was more of an expediture than an income. Indeed, Empires fall when their core is in danger, finds no need in continuing the empire, and, third, when it simply is unable to rule - as was the case of the Russian Empire in the 20th century.              

Obama's 'Emancipation Proclamation' - Universalizing Early Omniarchic Theory

"The real India has Muslims and Hindus in every village and in every city." These are the words that Roshan Seth, playing Jawarharlal Nehru, utters in Richard Attenborough's Gandhi. It is the retort he wages against Alyque Padamsee's Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who opens the scene addressing Gandhi - "I'm concerned about the slavery of the Muslim people."

North Carolina has proved to be a state enslaved by a certain kind of master. A state senator drafted and the people have passed what would restrict the rights and interests of a certain population. Granted, the two sides, majority and minority, cannot be so well discerned as their early-20th century Indian counterparts. They, nonetheless, exist in North Carolina. Refer to A First Amendment. And the majority, who posted such a law, mandates the life choices of a minority - the essence of slave-master conduct.

Jinnah proposes a majority-Muslim state to be Pakistan and the rest "is your India." Gandhi drops his head in annoyance as Sardar Vallabhai  Patel questions the possibility of Pakistan - a geographic one. (Bengal and Punjab - the regions containing Muslim majorities - were on opposite sides of India). Jinnah calms his colleague - "Let us worry about Pakistan. You worry about India." As per the set up Jinnah suggests, Pakistan would represent "the Muslim-majority provinces [and] Hindustan...the Hindu-majority provinces" in compromises whereby the "minority Muslims outside the Muslim territory would be protected" just as "non-Muslims inside it."

Despite, or maybe in spite, of what happened in NC, president Barack Obama has decided to adapt a pro-Gay policy. The United States is driven by the "Pakistan" idea.

There are two states in the United States - the Federal one and the local one, the "State" state. Their relationship is what Jinnah had analyzed and sought to make happen in Pakistan. Though by no means is there a  Gay majority in either North Carolina or the USA as a whole by numbers, there is a voice stronger when taken from the nation as a whole. 

There are Gay Americans everywhere. However, their voice isn't heard or is being muted by the straight or, in many cases, homophobic majority. On the national level, however, the gay voice is being heard and isn't being muted by the homophobes. Neither one is necessarily a majority on the national level. Half of all Americans support gay marriage. Meaning, half of Americans don't support gay marriage. Regardless, this doesn't reflect the 60-40 vote cast in North Carolina ushering in the homophobic policy. 

If North Carolina is a gay-minority state and the USA a gay-majority state and Jinnah's negotiations principle was followed, the rights of the gay-minority in NC should be advocated for by the majority in the USA - and they certainly are. Many people point to Obama's speech the other day cementing his unequivocal support for the Gay cause. However, like his predecessors (Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and Kennedy's Civil Rights' address), Obama is just a device of this larger principle - a federalist system. Seeking the vote of pro-gay Americans, even if isn't his primary goal, Obama says what he said. 

Indeed, there are gay Americans everywhere; however, their rights aren't being protected everywhere. Thus, their interests are being protected by the majority state, in our case, the federal state. 

Certainly this speaks to the potential for American omniarchy. This communication between the majority and minority is there; however, it is dependent on the politician and his representative way of government. The President bridged the gap of an American pro-gay majority and a North Carolinian anti-gay majority. Yet politicians aren't the solution. Though, we must remember, that it was a politician who mobilized the anti-gay North Carolinian majority to begin with. To reiterate what was said in A First Amendment, the power-oriented nature of these politicians, or at least that which universalizes them, must be shunned and, in their ashes, must rise the cause-oriented political elite.

A First Amendment: North Carolina's Wasn't a Referedum

We've all heard it. We all know. The people of North Carolina have made their call. It is now not only illegal for gay couples to get married or have legally acknowledged domestic relationships. Straight couples can't either. However, this was a move made by the people...right? 

There are referendums, and then there are elections. Amendment One was conceived by the latter. Let's first understand how a referendum-initiative works. A group of people who are well-versed on a publicly-affective subject (the political elite) writes up a draft/bill. This bill is voted by the people. Essentially, this process serves to combine the "minority" and "majority" in an attempt to include all citizens in the legislative process. What has happened in North Carolina is, however, simply a device of majoritarian politics.

Sponsored by Republican State Senator Peter Brunstetter, the Bill began its journey in the hands of a whole another kind of political "elite." Interestingly enough, proponents of the Bill had repeatedly argued their case as so - "the amendment was needed to keep 'activist judges or politicians' from overturning the state's 1996 law" (Zucchino, "North Carolina Passes..."). Indeed reactionary forces aren't any less "activist" than their progressive counterparts and, in this case, undemocratic, too.

We can argue the constitution all day. A person has a right to privacy certainly (but how far is that going to go) and let's not forget the preamble. Civics 101: the Constitution is a terrible source for political theory. Let's deal with democracy as I have defined it (stole more like - refer to Robert Dahl's thoughts on democratic theory; also read my article Omniarchy: the days for "representative democracy" are over) and the way the referendum-initiative works to further it. All of this, of course, is to understand just how North Carolina  has shown to us that their process is majoritarian - how its "election of law" not people is just a facade.

The law was manufactured by a politician, Peter Brunstetter, not the political elite. What's the difference? Well, first of all, the political elite isn't a power elite. It is a cause elite; meaning, it is on the forefront of a "cause" and is made up of experts in that elite's subject area. Certainly, Brunstetter is not an expert in the area of Gay studies. He isn't fighting a Gay or even an anti-Gay cause to be considered a member of the political elite. "Brunstetter currently serves the Senate as co-Chairman of the Appropriations/Base Budget Committee, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary I Committee, Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate, and as a member of the Finance, Commerce, and Redistricting Committees." (Wikipedia, Peter Brunstetter). Saying he wrote Amendment One as a power move wouldn't be wrong - it couldn't be wrong.

But the wider and more painful difference between such a politician as Brunstetter and the political elite is pluralism and hole in the definition of a "minority." Certainly one man cannot be a representative of the "minority" to represent the gap between "majority" and minority. (The idea of the omniarchy is to create an all by combining a majority and minority). If anything, this is just a majority times two development. Not only did the majority vote in the law (as omniarchy would suggest) they also voted in the one-man "minority." 

A politician's penned Bill cannot be the subject of a true referendum. That politician is the emobiment of the representative system and, thus, the persona of the majority. For him to "strike a deal" makes no sense. He is in debt to the majority. Certainly, then, there is still no reason to believe that the mechanisms of an omniarchy, the processes of a referendum-initiative would fail; that is to say - referendums will create omniarchies and everyone will have a say in the creation of laws. Though, one must ask - where were the LGBTQ-ers when North Carolina needed them so badly? Perhaps it was too engaged in power-orientated political attacks against a severely misguided happens-to-be son of immigrants. How the wheel in the sky turns.

The Inadvertent Rebellion: How to out-maneuver the guarded establishment

Unintentionally, people are becoming activists. In a nation accusing itself of political apathy, political activism is being outsourced into the anti-social ranks of America. Certainly, policymakers have to take into consideration this potential for a secondary citizenship.

The Oikos University shooting is "the nation's biggest mass school shooting since Virginia Tech." "Goh, who was born in South Korea...bought a gun and a few weeks later open[ed] fire at the college on Monday in a rampage that left six students and a receptionist dead and wounded three more, authorities said."

Now terrorist protest has been looked down upon for a while now ever since a little brown man defeated the largest empire in the world. But what can we do if it is a natural phenomenon? That is, Goh's attack on Oikos, as tragic as it may be/has been, is not something that was planned to be a show against the remarkably unfair system we have today.

The man, "who," according to police Chief Howard Jordon, "couldn't deal with the pressures of life," slaughtered seven and wounded three more to irrationally get back at his bullies.

Certainly, this is the short-term cause, but there is more at play. This sort of action is what non-violent and violent revolt strives to simulate. Whether through bussing, hunger strike, or assasination, the revolutionary seeks to bring to the forefront problems that are otherwise ignored by the mainstream. Goh has, however inadvertantly, done this.

These "pressures" should not be pushed to the side, as Howard Jordon does. They are important, and, if for no other reason, for the one presented by Goh.

But first, what are these pressures? "Goh...felt disrespected by teasing about his poor English skills at the Oakland school." Indeed, bullying is a serious issue in our society.

Goh has shown us that bullying will cause people to become anti-social, to take up arms against the society that so haunts them. It is a crime, but it is also a disease, whose virus can be killed.

Goh's case follows the book. "He was chased by crediotrs. He grieved the death of his brother," and then there's the bullying. Sure, Goh will more than likely be given the death penalty. It is legal in California. But we must ask ourselves, will killing Goh rehabillitate him? Will looking at Goh's case as an independent, isolated one prevent this sort of crime?

Crime committed by those who "who couldn't deal with the pressures of life" is the oldest kind. But let's take a recent example. Jared Lee Loughner killed six in an assasination attempt against Congresswoman Giffords. There is no single reason for Loughner's mistake, but the one that makes the most sense is because he was ignored by the Congresswoman.

These reactions are inherent in certain personalities.These men who murder are toyed by the emotions of injustice, of one form or another. Had they strategized the best way to achieve their agenda, attempting to kill the congresswoman or actualling killing six or seven people totally uninvolved would not be on the top of the "to do" list.

Then, their actions are sure to repeat if these "pressures of life" are imposed on another like-minded individual.

We cannot changed people's reactions to injustices. Some people have more "radical" reactions to injustices. To the things that Goh encountered, many immigrants, speaking from first hand experience, just shrug their shoulders and walk away.

Every now and then people inevitably will come and react to injustice, some in pacifist ways, others in more violent ways; however, as nature tends to snap back into equilibrium, the establishment, to perpetuate these injustices through the illusion of serving justice, creates the police force.

Consider the following hypothetical, keeping in mind that I am, in no way, advocating for violence against bullies, or murder in general.

Suppose that we were living in a society controlled in every way, but anarchy ruled bully-related crime. There is no punishment for killing someone, whether a bully or not, if that killer is a victime of bullying. And suppose if there it is unconstitutional to make it a law to illegalize murders caused by bullying. What will happen? Bullying itself will become illegal.

So why isn't bullying illegal now? Why isn't direct democracy void of middlemen congress members made? There is no pressure.

The establishment pacifies the demos by convincing them that 1) rendering the "criminal" unable to commit further "Crimes" - or inadvertant motions of revolution against injust established policies, and 2) it conveys to the public a message: that, by the powers vested in the police force, such actions will not be taken, but they inevitably will as they have.

As the people, however, we must end these murders. Jailing and killing - no doubt, murdering and thereby becoming the "evil" we see to destroy - these already victimized persons does not solve the problem.

I am not suggesting that we take policy just to stop killers, as if killing should be a form of policymaking. Rather, this form of inadvertant murder is caused directly by an implication or effect of the issue, which said policy will try to solve. Only this sorts of murder can be solved by policy, but, nonetheless, it can be solved by policy.

Quoted material: AP News. Terry Collins, "CA Attack Suspect upset about expulsion, teasing." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jL76F6RHY_VQ3GHjlnZ_RMbbaFaw?docId=a85e2b95ff08411fb5bf87e03a6b3f09 

Omniarchy: the days for "representative democracy" are over

What is democracy? "The rule of the people." Well, who are the people? This is a tricky question, and because of this ambiguity, we should forget the term all together.

Certainly, ditching Aristotle's terms isn't new. Monarchies have been modernized into dictatorships. Of course, there is a small difference between the two. Monarchies are the archaic things of queens, kings, sultans, emperors, etc. Dictatorships refer to the rule of those who seize by force Republican political office.

So from the ashes of this ancient term, "democracy," must rise the phoenix of a new people's political system. Try omniarchy, the rule of all.

But before we get into that, let's consider today's political system - the "representative democracy," if you will. In this blog, I have mentioned multiple times the polyarchy. Indeed, representative democracy (also Republican form of government) is a polyarchy, the rule of the many. Now, why is it the rule of the many? Well besides de facto disenfranchisement caused by local governments screwing around with ballots and engaging in gerrymandering, there are two other points to keep in mind in terms of our Republic being more like a polyarchy than an omniarchy.

It certainly is not the rule of all. In terms of elections, the majority is king - whether we're talking electoral college stuff or popular elections. But, for argument's sake, let's deal with presidential elections.

We shouldn't forget the disaster that is our two-party system. Not only is it requisite for parties to accumulate a certain number of pre-ballot votes in each state across the nation, the race between the two major parties and any "third" party is a joke. The race comes down to which party can gather the most votes - electoral or popular. The electoral college is not even based on the majority. Though the candidate who wins the majority of a state's electoral vote wins the state, some states have more "electors" than others. Certain states have are more decisive than others.

In this system, there is one element that is by majority and one that is by minority. Certainly, then, the rule by all must be established, right? No. These two procedures are disjointed. The popular proceedings before the general elections - note, only the primaries of one of the two parties are the only ones really ever given any sort of attention - have very little to do with the electoral college elections. Presumably, the majority chooses the parties and their nominees. The electoral college, a rubber stamp for the voters, chooses the winner of the state. It isn't required for the winner of the race to win all the states, but he must win the majority of the electors, still a matter of majority.

Then there's the policymaking procedure, which still nurtures this rule of the many. Proponents for Republican government will tell you that the elected officials are the gateway between the peoples' voice and legislation. They may be gateways for the majority's voice, but not for the minorities. The Kony 2012 campaign shows us the "power of the many." Flooded by mail from IC supporters, the Obama administration in 2009 sent troops into Uganda to aid the Ugandan army. As many political pundits will tell you, this was a terrible idea. And it is for this reason why the minority must play a role in guiding public policy. The American population is pretty much divided into two camps: the political elite and everyone else.

Now, the political elite is not a group of politicians and Party workers as many in the latter camp may presume. The political elite consist of activists, political theorists/writers, professors, and others who understand politics, specifically, American politics and have strong, usually ideological, stances on various political subjects. The writers of the Constitution thought our politicians would be a part of the political elite. If this premise were true, there would be nothing wrong with our Republican government. But, as we've just discussed, the voters do not elect activists and theorists. They elect puppets who do as they are told by the majority.

Certainly, then, the importance of the political elite, the minority in our American population, is only obvious. They are independent thinkers, in the words of Republican democracy - "non-partisan." They believe in laws because they have personal conviction in those laws. However, the Republican way of government undermines this elite, despite their greater understanding of politics.    

Consider the referendum initiative in New York City. Who are the ones who submit laws in this form? That's easy: the elite. However, to be successful, the elite must not only gather popular consent - it has to log thousands of signatures - but their bill and petitions must also pass through the watchful eyes of the city clerk and the city council, both of which will actively seek to destroy the bill.

However, policy by popular shouts, working outside of the government structure itself, are heard. In addition to the 2009 deployment of American troops into Uganda, the Bully Bill in New Jersey was essentially the result of an LGBTQ-led popular campaign to petition the government. Note: the LGBTQ is still a member of the political elite. They sought to do pass a policy measure, gained popular support, and followed through. This process has two elements: the few and the many. Thus, this could be an example of the rule of all. But just what number is consider the many? Did the majority of the New Jersey population agree with the law? Certainly not. Indeed, this is not an example of omniarchy.

What is omniarchy? The rule of all. Elections must follow the procedure produced by Robert Dahl. The principles of fairness and intrinsic equality must be followed - that is, everyone who must obey laws must have a say in their creation, and, because "all men are created equal," everyone must have a say in the creation of laws. Now how does everyone have a say in the creation of laws? Simple. There are two elements: the minority and the majority. (Simple addition, the minority plus the majority equals all). The minority, more often than not, the political elite, will write a law. Submit it to a database of some kind. A website connected to the database allows citizens to vote on the laws. The majority of citizens must vote "yea" for the proposal to pass. Ideally, the law becomes active the minute the majority votes yea, but, of course, in our world of power-hungry politicians, the bill would be passed to legislatures for approval. Naturally, the legislatures would erode as people begin to see no need for them.

Many of us, when we say "the people," mean everyone, all. The democracy we call "democracy" today is far from this omniarchy we all seek. So, forget the term democracy. It means nothing. Its sanctity has been lost in the Republican form of government, which so likes to call itself a representative democracy. We all have the right to make our own laws and chose them. We don't need to vote people to serve as obstacles for our passing policy, to serve as obstacles to our omniarchy.

For more information - go to http://lowercased.org/p/

The Final Stretch

An AP piece, published on Fox, calls this very last Iowa debate "the final stretch." But how final is it? There have been three turnovers in the leading number one position: from Perry, to Cain and now to Gingrich. And every since his tax plan came into some serious scrutiny, even Gingrich is, slowly but surely, lose his position, as well. So what better way to describe this than "the final stretch?" Who knows who's going to win the nomination. If Gingrich's support deteriorates at the rate its going right now, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney's last-minute sprint would cast him the nomination.

But sure enough, there is more to consider.
"...candidates are hitting the ground in a mad dash to meet and greet voters before their minds are made up and they tune politics out. "

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1girWFflr
This would be true, but since when was it ever about "politics." (An all too common Republican degradation of proper political terminology - ISSUES not "politics"). These sort of primaries are never about the politics but about the personalities. The question comes down to: who is more Republican. Why else did Perry, Cain and now Gingrich slip? They weren't Republican enough. Perry was too liberal in his handling of Texas's DREAM Act: he was for it. Cain - well, he was a child-molester. And Gingrich is a big government type of guy. (An image, propelled by Glenn Beck, that has been sitting with Republicans all over the country and no doubt degrading Gingrich's already disgusting track record).

With the last pre-caucus debate in the rearview, the Republican presidential candidates are hitting the ground in a mad dash to meet and greet voters before their minds are made up and they tune politics out.

So, yes, its a final stretch but it is also almost over. The "lower-tier" candidates have no chance and, as history shows, the only candidate that has a chance to "win" - besides Gingrich - is Romney. Again, if a big government advocate and a Mormon are topping the Republican charts, how in God's name can this be about "politics?"

Here's the article:

The Fox News debate Thursday night in western Iowa was a critical opportunity for the candidates to make their closing arguments on a host of issues ranging from foreign policy to the economy to sheer electability. The next two and a half weeks will be about the personal touch, as the candidates pack their schedules in Iowa and beyond with visits to every pizza parlor and diner they can find.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1giuiz0co
The second-tier candidates are making a big push. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry set out on a statewide Iowa bus tour, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann followed an aggressive performance at Thursday night's debate with an aggressive schedule of stops at restaurants and coffee shops across western Iowa.
The leaders of the pack, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have the leeway to look a bit be

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1giueMG9r 

The Final Stretch

An AP piece, published on Fox, calls this very last Iowa debate "the final stretch." But how final is it? There have been three turnovers in the leading number one position: from Perry, to Cain and now to Gingrich. And every since his tax plan came into some serious scrutiny, even Gingrich is, slowly but surely, lose his position, as well. So what better way to describe this than "the final stretch?" Who knows who's going to win the nomination. If Gingrich's support deteriorates at the rate its going right now, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney's last-minute sprint would cast him the nomination. 

But sure enough, there is more to consider. 

"...candidates are hitting the ground in a mad dash to meet and greet voters before their minds are made up and they tune politics out. "

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1girWFflr

This would be true, but since when was it ever about "politics." (An all too common Republican degradation of proper political terminology - ISSUES not "politics"). These sort of primaries are never about the politics but about the personalities. The question comes down to: who is more Republican. Why else did Perry, Cain and now Gingrich slip? They weren't Republican enough. Perry was too liberal in his handling of Texas's DREAM Act: he was for it. Cain - well, he was a child-molester. And Gingrich is a big government type of guy. (An image, propelled by Glenn Beck, that has been sitting with Republicans all over the country and no doubt degrading Gingrich's already disgusting track record).

With the last pre-caucus debate in the rearview, the Republican presidential candidates are hitting the ground in a mad dash to meet and greet voters before their minds are made up and they tune politics out. 

So, yes, its a final stretch but it is also almost over. The "lower-tier" candidates have no chance and, as history shows, the only candidate that has a chance to "win" - besides Gingrich - is Romney. Again, if a big government advocate and a Mormon are topping the Republican charts, how in God's name can this be about "politics?"

Here's the article:

The Fox News debate Thursday night in western Iowa was a critical opportunity for the candidates to make their closing arguments on a host of issues ranging from foreign policy to the economy to sheer electability. The next two and a half weeks will be about the personal touch, as the candidates pack their schedules in Iowa and beyond with visits to every pizza parlor and diner they can find. 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1giuiz0co

The second-tier candidates are making a big push. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry set out on a statewide Iowa bus tour, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann followed an aggressive performance at Thursday night's debate with an aggressive schedule of stops at restaurants and coffee shops across western Iowa.
The leaders of the pack, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have the leeway to look a bit be

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/gop-candidates-enter-final-iowa-stretch-after-tense-debate/#ixzz1giueMG9r 

The Gay Application

You've heard of the Declaration of Human Rights, the International Court and, I'm sure, the UN. Now, prepare yourselves for the application of all these ideals on gay people. See, I wouldn't have a problem with this but its just the way they handle it. The separation and degradation. It's unbelievable and, honestly, counter intuitive. Why would the UNITED Nations promote nationalism. This is nationalism of sorts isn't it. Isn't the "gay culture" a culture of its own. Can we not apply Marx's no country for a workman to gay people? Aren't they more similar  to eachother? Unbelievably cosmopolitan, gentlemen.

15 December 2011 – 

The first ever United Nations report on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people details how around the world people are killed or endure hate-motivated violence, torture, detention, criminalization and discrimination in jobs, health care and education because of their real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.The report, released today by the UN Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva, outlines “a pattern of human rights violations… that demands a response,” and says governments have too often overlooked violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The report, released today by the UN Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva, outlines “a pattern of human rights violations… that demands a response,” and says governments have too often overlooked violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Read more>

Distrurbed democracy

Tell me if you get this.

Everyone knows the disasters of the Iraq War. The massive loss of human life. The endless end. The corrupt ambitions of the wagers. The unjustifiable injustices. Its all known. Its all out there. But despite this obviousness, the Secretary of Defense stood up in a Baghdad airport and uttered these words: "not in vain."

I don't think he knows the meaning of the word vain. It doesn't matter if there is any sort of bullshit "advantage," which there certainly isn't. Say he meant that the Iraq War wasn't all in vain. Then, the question is of weight. Does the good outweigh the bad? No.

Let's understand, right of the bat, democratic assistance - even if it leads to the most successfully democracy - IS NOT worth more than human life. There is a hierarchy of rights and, I don't know about you, but for me the right to life ranks lower than any sort of civil right or liberty guaranteed by a democracy. It makes no sense to me to lose life over civil rights. What is the whole purpose, even if the civil right or liberty is mandated, if there is a loss in life? It makes no sense.

So in that case, it is obvious that Panetta's assessment - which is based on a horrible ideology - is deranged. How can you possibly say that millions of lost lives didn't go in vain because of a still-failing democracy. Oh, Panetta, don't you dare go into saying western "democratic" culture can possibly be transplanted in the east. Fuck you and your propaganda.

LA Times' David Cloud and David Zucchino wrote a piece discussing this unbelievably disgusting faux pas. Fortunately they took the right stance. I understand ignorance but NOT representing 300 million and a whole lot more...

Reporting from Baghdad—But violence continues to roil the Mideast nation, and its political destiny is far from certain.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other top U.S. officials conducted a low-key ceremony on a military base at theBaghdad airport Thursday, furling the flag to signal the official conclusion of one of the most divisive wars in American history.
PHOTOS: U.S. military formally ends mission in Iraq
Panetta did not address the controversial origins of the conflict or Iraq's continuing troubles. Instead, he paid tribute to the sacrifices of U.S. troops, nearly 4,500 of whom were killed and 32,200 wounded since President George W. Bushordered the March 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. Read More>

On Understanding the Context of Tax Policy: Race, Tax and 2012

"If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama... ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama's race? Because that's what it appears to be to me. If you're against him but you're for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It's the policies that matter," -Glenn Beck

Is Glenn Beck justified in what he is saying?

Well, before we go into the details, we have to understand one thing. Beck compares Obama to Gingrich. Both love the idea of big government. He is justified when he says this, no doubt. But we cannot sit here and try to castigate these men, whether we are talking about Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich or even Glenn Beck. That’s not the point of Glenn Beck’s analysis. Obama and Gingrich are but the pawns in his logic. We must understand that the main question we must ask to assess Beck’s words is: Would/Is the battle between Obama and Gingrich one of race? That is our purpose in regarding Beck’s words, but, nonetheless, it involves understanding both men’s policies – that is unavoidable.

I argue that that race would not solely be about race simply because Gingrich and Obama differ in beliefs, beyond just “big government.” Their tax policies differ. But, mind you, I am not saying one man’s policies are better. That is left for you to decide. So let us understand that both men are supporters of “big government,” that is a belief in allowing governmental institutions to spend the public dollar to serve the public’s problems. But it is the way each man goes about doing it, spending the public dollar.

Obama is a prolific spender of the public dollar for more “liberal” policies and Gingrich is one for more “conservative policies.” But there is no better field to compare the two upon than tax reform. It is here that they differ drastically. Obama is totally pro-middle class. In the recent speech Obama gave in Osawatomie, Kansas he talked about the mid-20th century America, “an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried.” He suggested that – whether by causation or by simple correlation or maybe even by infinite regression – “ Every American shared in that pride and in that success—from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.” But now, “Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before.  But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren't” 

So what does he suggest? Well, he’s already made an attempt to solve this problem. In a White House summary of the The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, the 2010 Act “Extends middle class tax cuts to prevent a typical working family from facing a tax increase of over $2,000 on January 1.” But his suggestion is both explicit and implicit. According to Jackie Calme’s NY Times article from last September, “Obama Tax Plan would Ask More from Millionaires,” the President was going to mandate “a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.” It is implicit in how it contradicts Gingrich’s plan.

Newt Gingrich is the current GOP front-runner, who, according to Gallup, leads the polls with a 33% ballot support, in front of Romney’s not-too-shabby 22%. You should remember: Gingrich brought back the Republican House majority in the 1994 elections, dubbed the second Revolution. Working alongside the Clinton administration, he helped build and pass the Welfare Reform Act (1996), which sought, according to Amy Goldstein’s 2008 San Francisco Chronicle article “Jobless Crisis Strains Shrunken Welfare System,” to “transform the old system of welfare, once considered an open-ended right, into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs.”

Indeed this surprisingly unbiased interpretation of the Welfare Reform Act very well still defines Gingrich’s tax plan. Gingrich’s plan, as per “[t]he analysis” done “by the” independent “Tax Policy Center,” will see to it that the taxes placed on “households making more than $1 million a year would…drop by an average of 62 percent.” And what does he say about the middle class? In this very same Washington Post article (“Study: Gingrich tax plan would provide big breaks for rich, blow huge hole in budget deficit”), Gingrich’s plan apparently has an “optional 15 percent flat tax on income,” which “would apply to income at all levels, but there would be a variety of tax deductions and credits.” But how does this compare with Obama’s plan?

Well, first we must understand that both men agree on big government. And this agreement can be seen in the area of tax policy. Any sort of tax cut is based on the idea of a pro-deficit ideology. Deficit spending is nothing more than spending the public dollar, which brings us to big government. But it is beyond this agreement that the two differ. And, again, this can be seen in the area of tax policy. Obama, according to his rhetoric, believes in reviving the middle class by taxing the rich thru government spending; whereas, Gingrich, as per his plan, strives to revive the economy by cutting the taxes for the wealthy, thereby encouraging business and improving the job economy. (Note: Gingrich’s plan would have been a Reaganisque small government policy had it not included the various tax deductions and credits for accepting the 15 percent flat tax.) Certainly, then, Glenn Beck was wrong. It is NOT about race, the competition between Obama and Gingrich. It is about the same ideological difference that has resided in tax policy since a very long time ago: government activism versus trickle down. That is what the race would be about, not race.  

On Metal: Fighting Ignorance.

Many people don't listen to metal. This paucity is a breeding ground for stigma. And people have not let us down. Indeed there is a set of stereotypes associated with metal. They are angry, screaming, screeching, Satan worshipping rebels who scream, screech (and not sing) just for the sake of rebellion. Oh and also there is that whole "cidal" idea that has been dragged into metal: homicidal and suicidal crazymen.

But this is not the point of metal. By thinking of metal in this sort of way, you have done yourself a great disservice. Metal is not a sort of "dumb" genre like those that have taken form in our modern day. If you are aware of the things people dare call music today, you will know what I'm talking about. Friday? Caillou? Beiber? Do any of these ring a bell? But, mind you, I'm not trying to disparage these songs. No. If you have a purpose to your listening, like entertainment, and these songs serve this purpose for you, by all means, do listen to them. But if you seek to attain a higher level of truth in your music, an intellectualism of sorts, I suggest you listen to metal. Metal provides the gateway to intellectual enlightenment to break away from the socially conditioned chains that entangle us to the dogma of the conformists and force us to accept, not think. Any other genre is simply a form of anti-intellectual Civil Society, which in and of itself is a paradox. Metal is the only form left today whose sole purpose is progression!!!!

Metal is a legacy of 60s and 70s counterculture. It is appropriate therefore that metal is but a subculture, lost in the labyrinth of intellectualism, away from the mainstream, today. For what has happened to counterculture? What happened to appreciating difference? It has gone underground. Our society has become more conformist. But it has become more tolerant only BECAUSE of this conformism. And it has become more accepting of other cultures only because it is socially unacceptable to not. Why else are there, demographically, more homophobes among rural areas than more-urban areas. There is a tendency to conform. Note: I'm not saying being tolerant is wrong, but being a conformist (9 of 10 times) is. 

Being a conformist puts you in the dark. It may be proven by science (since, for some reason, a result of our advertising world, I guess, objective rhetoric is worth more than subjective reasoning) that people live in their subconscious when in a conformist world. They don't think outside of the box, indeed that is the definition of conformity. So, I ask, how is progress supposed to arise from this system? The only way is if thought is obsolete. Are we done with normative thought? Are we in a post-normative world in which the only way to progress is technical? 

If this were true, mainstream music has definitely reflected that. In our modern mainstream music, the top-of-the-chart music, hahaha the successful songs, are ones with advanced engineering and complicated mixes. Indeed this is the result of millions of dollars and wonderful technology (which are not mutually exclusive). 

But what happened to intellect? Thought? The Aryan Cause--to destroy ignorance? (If you think I'm talking about 20th Century Fascism here, I have no words for you). Is there no place for that in our modern ever so advanced market place? Obviously not. They are weird. Who would ever want to listen to them? Or my favorite: "they're depressing."

Yes, they are. And they need to be. How else can you break ignroance? If "ignorance is bliss," isn't the only way to attain the light, or at least one way, to shed this bliss, to realize that this bliss is just a farce? That the real bliss will come when we rid ourselves of these problems, instead of just ignoring them. This is true even for black metal and death metal. The main purpose of these controversial pieces is not a hatred for life, necessarily, thought such a hatred can be implied, and even if it can be implied, such a hatred only comes after a love for death. Metal goes beyond just conditioned thought, in a very intellectual way.

For the sake of comparison, consider Jay-Z. Shawn Carter, his original given name, grew up in the Marcy Projects of Brooklyn. And, no doubt, he had suffered. He says so himself. But despite a few lyrics (like those from "Success" on American Gangster, "truth be told I had more fun when I was piss poor" and "I got watches I ain't seen in months/Apartment at the Trump only slept in once") there is this sort of pro-capitalist feel, by which he puts his back on his past. Instead of being the self-professed "mail man" that he claims to be on the very same album, he instead has become the very evil he sought to destroy, an effect that has clearly been cast by this whole conformist mentality. I have never heard anyone who shares his background utter anything even resembling "Get a job, my nigga." (from Jay-Z's "Say Hello," another song from American Gangster) This ideological incongruency, a neglect of constraint, is nothing more than just a practice of an all-too-real theory embodied in James Madison few words, "Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything." What does Jay-Z stand for? What does rap stand for? What is their purpose? To state verbatim the many things we hear in objective independent film? Or to make cash? Indeed metal goes beyond this.

The lyrical prowess of metal music operates on a higher plane than any of these "modern" forms, at least in comparison to their mainstream elements (metal has no mainstream form!!!!). It has literary merit and philosophical constraint not seen by other forms of music, especially in other music, which does exactly what Jay-Z says it does. It serves, ironically, as a "mailman," an aloof entity. Metal, however, delves into the depths of thought, from existentialism into Vedic Hinduism. If I were to throw an umbrella generalization, no doubt, I would be the biggest sort of hypocrite. Moreover, I would not like to make the arguments that just seem so obvious because they don't work. Not all rap is about "bitches, cars and cash." I give you Damian Marley's "Stand a Chance." But, lyrically, the literary merit of metal is on a higher plane than our "modern" music. It practices constraint because it based on a strict ideology.

So let it be known that metal has no sort of mainstream involvement. The reason is paradoxical. Metal is being hurt by the thing it is trying to destroy. Metal, in its obsession with destroying ignorance, is hurt by ignorance. The ignorance of the truth behind the art, behind its philosophy. This is a scary concept. How can people listen to you, your call to arms against ignorance, if they are filled with a bias - a result of ignorance. It takes no genius to realize that ignorance causes a LOT of problems, but ignorance cannot be fought if is a part of the status quo.

That being said, and being obvious enough, no matter how "deep" rap may go, it doesn't go enough. This is because of their accepted ideology. A nothing ideology. An ideology that doesn't constrain itself to anything. There is a ignorance in these artists that is a result of ignorance. They are not educated and they are obsessed with the sort of "street smarts." As compelling as it may be, "street smarts" is nothing without "bookish" smarts. It can, at best, be a supplement. How can people like fucking Kanye West and Jay-Z be wearing Occupy Wallstreet shirts and saying shit like "What do you think I rap for, to push a fucking Rav-4?" This ignorance is embazed in all they do. They are not furthering our society but pushing it back. They have become the same politicians that they so disdain. They do not believe anything but mirror all the shit they hear to appease to audiences. They clearly aren't even helping their cause. The right looks to THEM to make anti-poor and anti-Black policies. What the fuck ARE you rapping for?

But this sort of ignorance reaches beyond just the chart-toppers. And delves deeper into the crevices of the underground. Some will argue that literary merit is all that is required of an artist's lyrics. This is wrong. Universality is a key component, essential to the most basic elements of music: understanding. And what better way than to manifest in your piece the thoughts of Men before you. Ask any of these "modern" artists who Nietzche, Kant or Orwell are. They don't know. Its stupid to ignore all this great thought and "start fresh." What happened to "standing on the shoulders of giants?" THIS IS REGRESSION!!!!

And people will even say that metal's high level thought is esoteric or elitist. It is not. Intellectualism is not a bourgeios take. Intellectualism is not a bourgeios construct. It is a human construct. Thinking is everyone's right. And the self-inflicted punishment that people today sentence themselves to is shocking. It is what is destroying our society. There is no reason to listen to it. Music played by ignorant Men amounts to just the very thing we are inevitably progressing towards: a world run by ignorant Men. To progress we must stray off the ignorance people dare call an aberration and blaze our own path. A path of intellectual righteousness. One that doesn't have to look and say I don't know. The one that is true to itself. It is not about appeasing to anyone. It is about doing what is right because it is right.

So if you look at me weird when I'm listening to my Bathory, Necrophagist or Rudra, keep in mind that, at the end of the day, I'm living on the cutting edge. I tear the chains that enslave everyone else: be it intellectual or economic, though they are not mutually exclusive. And the beauty of all this is: I want to free you to.