Socialism

It is a clear and obvious fact that all people desire power, and that those in power will desire to remain there. It was the driving force behind every empire ever created, every ruler ever to hold the throne, and every dollar ever made in a capitalist system because money is power. Pure and simple. It therefore follows that wealthy people will have more power than their less-well-off counterparts, and not just in a plutocratic system.

Is this injustice? Do wealthy people deserve to have their wants and needs fulfilled more than those who perhaps own less currency and possessions? Even when the wealthy elite are comprised of a much smaller amount of the population than the proletariat? Mind you, we no longer live in a society wherein a person's wealth is a reflection of his contribution to the general public. Not with all the scheming and dirty dealing that Wall Street has been engaged in since well before the bailouts or even Enron. I am personally of the opinion that a single elementary school teacher has more value to society than all of Goldman Sachs' employees put together.

If you're of the opinion that wealth automatically reflects value to society than you're even further right-wing than one who believes in meritocracy, and my writings will only further anger you.

Unfortunately this seems to be the case in most capitalist western countries. Those with the most political clout are the wealthy individuals and corporations, especially since the historically infamous Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. Politicians in the United States have even stopped concealing their pandering to the interests of the wealthy elite. Karl Rove's organization American Crossroads' sole purpose in the 2010 midterm election was to accept donation money from corporations and distribute it to republican candidates who Rove decided would represent their interests in congress. Say what you want about Karl Rove but the plan worked beautifully. Along with a revival of the politically-illiterate-but-still-active (tea party), American Crossroads allowed the furthest right wing fringes of American politics to be the majority party in the lower house of congress.

And what was the result? A major push back against some of the most beneficial legislation that this country has ever seen. The EPA, NPR, and Planned Parenthood all were threatened with the chopping block since the 2010 midterm election. All were public social programs put in place to benefit the average middle class American. Yet their existence hindered the amount of profit that Wall Street speculators would get away with. One cannot invest in a public institution.

Not to mention the doings of various republican governors, namely those of Wisconsin, Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida, who have actively pursued an agenda of lowering the standards of living for all unionized workers in their states in favor of giving state tax breaks to companies and millionaires in hopes of receiving a favorable jobs report for their term, as well as for ideological purposes.

So this is where were are left. Only those with an annual income of several million dollars and above can have their opinions heard in politics. This is the group of people that make up 2% of the United States population, yet have more wealth than almost 50% of the poorest members of that same population. So if you're like me, you'd like to hear a way to have that poor half of the population have their opinions represented in the government as well. And there is an answer.

Socialism.

I don't mean the watered-down, pansy definition that basically refers to anyone who steps a toe out of line with the corporate fascists. I mean real, actual, redistribution of the wealth, public control of the means of production, Socialism. It is the only conceivable means, in my opinion, of assuring that every single human being in the country receives a modicum of power.

Now this wouldn't be communism. There would be no forced equality beyond assured equality of opportunity. There would be no proletariat base rules by an authoritarian elite just as oppressive as the bourgeoisie.

If anyone has any criticisms of what I've written, I'd simply love to hear them.

P.S. If you're among those who use the terms Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, and/or Liberalism interchangeably, just don't even bother with this blog since you are politically illiterate to the point where I'm surprised you remember how to breathe.

The Demise of the Glenn Beck Program

Well good news for anyone who (like me) was just waiting for the day when the insane and politically-illiterate Glenn Beck got his just desserts.

In just under one month EIGHT advertisers have dropped Beck as a sponsor. In the UK, the program has been running without commercials for 5 days now. Two of these aforementioned sponsors have dropped the Fox News network entirely, meaning that Beck is now actually a drain on their funding.

Even the StopBeck twitter feed had been in a good mood.

Recently, Beck want on yet another wild and unsupported rant, though this time the subject was Egypt. Beck managed to tie in Egypt with George Soros, the Green movement, Van Jones, President Obama, and an imaginary "Communist insurrection' which...doesn't...exist...

The problem is that Beck sounded even crazier than usual. (video)

Here's another Faux Noise pundit telling Beck that maybe he should tone it down:

You know it's gotten bad when "you-can't-explain-that" O'Reilly tells you you've extrapolated too far.

Remember, this is the same Beck who has:

-Called the first black president a racist

-Called Senator Marie Landrieu a "high class prostitute"

-Called the first Muslim congressman a Terrorist

-Called holocaust survivor George Soros a Nazi sympathizer

-Launched an unsubstantiated campaign of hatred against anyone he perceived to be his enemy, setting off a new "red scare"

So I call upon my followers, before the next time you insult George Soros, Van Jones, or the President, think for a second and make sure you're not just playing directly into the hands of the wingnuts of Fixed Noise?

More Political Spectrum

I say we all just pack up and move to Amsterdam.

I was a little surprised at the placement of Germany. I think it has something to do with the EU. If anyone has any more requests I'll upload them here.

And for your time, here's an amusing alternative political stance:

FINANCIAL REFORM

I don't know if you could tell by the title, but I am mad. I enjoy being exposed to opposing viewpoints and thereby opening debate, but recently I have seen opposition that is over the top.

Our Federal Government is no attempting to pass a financial reform bill that would make it impossible to bailout a company by decreeing it too large to fail, while simultaneously tightening regulation over derivatives, which had a huge part in causing the financial recession that occurred in our recent past.

And guess what? ALL 41 Republican senators are opposed to the bill!!!! What the hell is their excuse for siding with Wall Street banks rather than the American people?! I've heard the following milk toast responses:

-it is socialist
-government intervention caused the financial crisis in the first place (untrue as hell)
-the bill is partisan

While the last point is true, it is not enough of a reason for our legislators to sell out their constituents to the Wall street bankers. Whether you love or hate the current administration, you should agree that this particular legislation is essential to prevent another financial meltdown. It is simple fact. No amount of Faux News or MSDNC bias can change that.

The exact action which caused the financial crisis was revealed recently: Goldman Sachs took out large insurance policies from AIG on toxic assets-ones that were doomed to fail. Once those assets failed, Goldman Sachs made big bucks off of their insurance policies and AIG went near bankrupt, which necessitated their bailout. So at the core of the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs made millions while the rest of the economy was tanking. The federal Securities and Exchange Commission recently discovered this and is pursuing legal ramifications.

I believe everyone can agree that the government that governs best governs least. Some may tote the slogan and repeat it enough times for it to be legally called propaganda, and more often than not those people are the ones who legislate exactly opposite to that slogan, but in the end we should all also agree that sometimes adding laws is necessary to stabilize our country. Some may argue that once our government begins to legislate that there is a slippery slope that leads us straight to communist Russia, but that is simply idiotic. This bill, if passed, would improve quality of life for everybody and would prevent Wall Street bankers from making off with America's taxpayer money with no ramifications.