America the Ironic

So Libertarians in America are apparently anti-authoritarian and pro-free market. But why be against publicly elected authority figures rather than those who reached such a position through cutthroat individuality. At least in America the government is chosen by majority vote (including the electoral college), but the capitalist elite represent nobody but themselves. The fact that they have so much political sway through their lobbying and campaign donating is the subject of much ire from the citizenry.

True libertarians are wary of autocracy from the private sector and include Anarchists, Social Democrats, and a few of the more self-aware right wingers. There is also such a belief as libertarian communism, but since it has never been properly implemented it has less credence than other theories.

TL;DR: If you think you're anti-authoritarian then you'd also better be against individualistic capitalists' power.

Boycott Newscorp

So it was revealed recently that Rupert Murdoch and the gang of douchebags he employs were hacking into peoples' cellphone messages and emails, including politicians, murder victims, and 9/11 survivors. The Prime Minister of the UK is believed to have been in on the scheme, and several high-ranking scotland yard policemen have resigned their posts following the revelation of the scandal. To make matters even worse, the man who informed the public about the actions of Murdoch's douches was found dead a few days ago, while the Murdoch-bought UK police call it "not suspicious".

If you're like me, you believe that the person who is a big enough douchebag to hire people to hack the phone messages of murder victims is also a big enough douchebag to hire someone to kill the man who is costing his international corporation millions of dollars. That's why I believe we should all boycott newscorp and its shady and illegal practices. Here's a link to a Firefox add-on that warn you when you visit a Murdoch-owned website:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/MurdochAlert-details/

Here's a list of websites to avoid:
foxnews.com
foxnewsinsider.com
fox.com
foxconnect.com
newscorp.com
foxinternational.com
foxbusiness.com
dowjones.com
fins.com
marketwatch.com
smartmoney.com
wsj.com
wsjclassroomedition.com
thedaily.com
4kids.tv
myspace.com
hulu.com
realestate.com
allthingsd.com
bigcharts.com
foxsports.com
foxsports.com.au
bigtennetwork.com
espnstar.com
fxnetworks.com
nationalgeographic.com
natgeotv.com
golfchannel.com
speedtv.com
tvguide.com
foxsportsradio.com
weeklystandard.com
nypost.com
newsinternational.co.uk
thetimes.co.uk
thesun.co.uk
newsoftheworld.co.uk
thesundaytimes.co.uk
theaustralian.com.au
news.com.au
truelocal.com.au
heraldsun.com
adelaidenow.com.au
dailytelegraph.com.au
couriermail.com.au
weeklytimesnow.com.au
perthnow.com.au
mxnet.com.au
alphamagazine.com.au
newsspace.com.au
careerone.com.au
carsguide.com.au
sky.com
skysports.com
sky.de
sky.it
skytv.co.nz
thestreet.com
webmd.com
foxmovies.com
foxstudios.com
foxsearchlight.com
blueskystudios.com
foxinternationalchannels.com
canalfox.com
mundofox.com
biensimple.com
foxlife.tv
foxlife.com.br
vedomosti.ru
harpercollins.com
harpercollins.co.uk
harpercollinschildrens.com
harperteen.com
harpercollinscatalogs.com
avonromance.com
thegarden.com
msg.com
staplescenter.com
smartsource.com
myfoxny.com
my9tv.com
myfoxla.com
myfoxchicago.com
my50chicago.com
myfoxphilly.com
myfoxdfw.com
kdfi27.com
myfoxboston.com
myfoxatlanta.com
myfoxdc.com
my20dc.com
myfoxhouston.com
my20houston.com
myfoxdetroit.com
myfoxphoenix.com
my45.com
myfoxtampabay.com
myfox9.com
my29tv.com
myfoxorlando.com
my65orlando.com
my24wutb.com
myfoxaustin.com
myfoxmemphis.com
wogx.com

Hopefully together we can effect some change in the world.

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.

Walker's Base

Over the past few days, Governor Scott Walker has been imposing his will over the obviously unwilling state of Wisconsin. He has been busy cutting education and workers' rights

This, predictably has caused a huge backlash from the citizens of the state, who value their progressive stances on almost every social issue. They prefer educating the youth of the nation over giving tax breaks to the people who need it least.

So why is it that so few supporters of Governor Walker have spoken out since the debate started? Perhaps because less than 20% of the state's population physically voted for the Governor.

Read the entire report here: http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/results/2010/fall-general

Wisconsin's census measured population was measured to be 5.6 million in 2010, the year the election took place. As you can see, less than half the population even participated in the election, and of those who did, just over 50% voted for Walker.

What's more, the Sunlight Foundation, an organization dedicated to exposing campaign funding in state and federal elections reports that Scott Walker was the highest receiver of Koch money on the state level during the 2010 election.

http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?d=2113818352

The Koch brothers are multi-billionaires who have donated huge amounts of money to the tea party movement and other Astroturf (fake grassroots) conservative causes. And though the Sunlight Foundation only covers $43,000 in donations to Walker's campaign, they don't record secondary contributions. The Koch brothers are reported to have bought several political ads during Walker's campaign, with costs numbering in the millions.

So the lesson to take form this is that Scott Walker was only elected through the use of millions of corporate dollars, with votes from a very small segment of the population, and that he is now imposing his will on an obviously unwilling people.

Soros vs Murdoch

In the news, two billionaires have been feuding over exactly who controls more of the mindless drones (middle class) in America. If you're the type who thinks with their Glen Beck, you'll immediately take sides. If you're the "Obama is the best president ever" type, you'll immediately pick the other side. So let's prove them both wrong by looking at the facts.

The two billionaires are George Soros and Rupert Murdoch. Obviously the two both have inordinate control over the political processes in the developed world, highlighting the more obvious flaws in our political systems. Personally, I believe we should implement a separation of corporation and state in a similar fashion that the US has a separation of church and state.

Net worth:

Soros- ~$14.2 billion

Murdoch- ~$6.2 billion

Soros is the obvious winner. If he put his mind to it, the man could probably buy half of Europe. But where does he spend his money? What does he influence?

Relevant Political contributions:

Soros- $23 million Soros made it his personal mission during the 2004 election to defeat incumbent President Bush, which obviously failed. he has also donated over $7 billion to non-partisan causes such as donations to universities.

Murdoch- Though Murdoch was a citizen of Australia until 1987 and was thus unable to contribute to American political campaigns, he is widely regarded as a king maker. He owns NewsCorp which has employed numerous prominent public figures, including Olliver North, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and the political clown Glen Beck.

Winner: Murdoch. Twenty three million dollars towards a failed presidential campaign is insubstantial compared to owning an entire conglomerate of media and biased news outlets.

"Spreading the Message":

Soros: List of journalism provided by Soros (click for link)

Murdoch: List of media outlets owned by Murdoch

Winner: Obviously Murdoch. Here's an info graphic of all his holdings.

Overall winner? It's up to you. Do you believe that Soros' $7 billion contributions over the years solidifies his status as the ultimate evil overlord? Or do you believe Murdoch's ownership of one of the four major broadcast companies still left in the US, as well as fox news, makes his mindless followers more prevalent and potent? Let me know in the comments.

Inequality in the United States

Not many people know, realize, or acknowledge that the gap between the rich and the poor in the US has been growing alarmingly fast over the past 50 or so years. Sure, we've all heard the news about the sorry state of the job market while Wall Street CEOs give each other hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses, but most of us never surmised exactly how dark the future looked for us and our children.

Here's a graph showing exactly how big that gap has grown:

And here's how that compares to how Americans want it to be:

From http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Don't get me wrong, an essential part of capitalism involves the rich being insanely wealthy while the rest remain destitute, but the degree to which America is now experiencing that is now nearly unprecedented.

Back in 2008, the US passed a .45 on the Gini Ratio, the ratio which measures the concentration of wealth. If a nation were to reach a Gini ratio of exactly 1, the wealth of that nation would lie solely in the hands of a single individual. As it stands, America's coefficient is surpassed only by third-world countries.

Now, one in five Americans shows an inability to afford food: http://frac.org/nearly-one-in-five-americans-report-inability-to-afford-enough-food/

So what can you do with this knowledge? Simply have it, and know it, and act upon it as you see fit. For a brighter future.

Correlation

Hey followers, if ever there's a lapse in my regular tweeting or blogging routine, it's because I'm focusing on classwork. I just finished a big history paper so I'll be back to my routine.

Here's a comparison of data from states in the USA.

Education spending per pupil per state:

And here's educational results per state:

Notice the states that spend more on education almost always get better educational results. The outliers are Utah and West Virginia, yet even with them in the mix, the correlation is undeniable.

Look up other factors yourself at http://www.measureofamerica.org/maps/