3. Politics of Money

There has been a lot of talk lately about money; people who have it, people who don't, people who will do anything to get it, and people who have so much that they can't spend it fast enough.  If you were to believe everything you hear, you would think money is the force that makes the world go around, and that it's the force that can cause it to come to a screeching halt.  Without money, you can't survive... right?

There has been a huge deal made lately over two numbers: 99% and 1%.  Apparently 99% of us combined does not make as much money as the other meager 1% by themselves.  That's a lot of money in the hands of a few people.  Now, for a minute, let's look at these numbers with impartial eyes.  I am part of the 99%.  I am employed by the 1%.  There are over a thousand people getting paid in the corporation I work.  There is only 1 CEO of the company, so that CEO is the 0.1% of the company, and yet he's responsible for the salaries of the 99.9% of the company.  If that CEO makes a bad decision, the 99.9% of us could be out of a job and 100% of us would be in a pickle. 

That being said, not every CEO is as benevolent as the one I work for, and there is a lot of greed in that 1% that deserves scrutiny, but let's look into this beyond what we see on the surface.  Let's ask the real questions as to what's going on here.  Why are so many people upset with the 1%?  Is it the fact that the 1% are spoiled and can get anything they want while most of us struggle daily to make ends meet?  Well, I hope that's not what most of you think, as I know that often the people in that 1% work harder and longer than many of the people in the 99%.  Could the outrage be caused by envy, people wanting what the 1% has?  I sure hope people are not as shallow as that.  No, it appears to me that the source of all this frustration comes down to something very simple.  Taxes, Taxes, Taxes. 

The 99% seems to pay more than its fair share, while the 1% pays nothing (or less).  Though that is an exaggeration, it is the most valid point I've heard thus far.  This alone should be the cause for outrage, but we still must be careful that we don't overlook the real problems here.  So let's then ask why the 1% doesn't pay their fair share in taxes.  Well, first, let's say that a lot of charities receive generous donations from people among the 1% (as well as those in the 99%).  Many of these donations are tax deductable, so that cuts out a lot of money that the government otherwise would be seeing.  And I can't argue with the 1% here.  If I had the choice of paying for a child's cancer treatment or fronting the money for a congressman to buy a condo, the child wins any day.  The second reason that the 1% is paying less in taxes is a less noble one.  Tax breaks.  Who sets tax breaks?  Congress.

So recapping, whose fault is it that the 1% is not paying their fair share in taxes?  Is it the rich, who pay what they're told to pay? Charities, who still try to do a little good in this world with what little they receive?  Or Congress, who approves the tax laws.  If we're going to get upset at someone, let's at least direct it at the right people. So let's ask another question.  Why would Congress, who gets elected by the 99% (or lately more like 50.1% because nobody can agree which candidates are the lesser of the two evils) give so much back to the 1% that statistically has little impact on their elections?  Well, that's where we get into politics. 

Every politician running for office needs to do only 4 things:  1) Meet the age limit. 2) Meet the citizenship requirement. 3) Meet the residency requirements.  The first three requirements are constitutional, though the last one is the most important.  To run for office, every politician needs what?  4) Money!  In 2008, between 6 presidential candidates, between nine hundred million and a billion dollars were raised for the election.  That's just for the office of President.  President Obama brought in over $500,000,000 while John McCain brought in about $380,000,000.  Two questions come to mind when you see those numbers.  1) Where did all that money come from?  2) Where the HECK did it go?  Does television advertisements, billboards, radio announcements, newspaper ads, online ads, Super Bowl commercials, bus stop signs, bus signs, truck signs, airport signs, whatever signs... does all of that cost a billion dollars for six people?  Well, I suppose transportation is part of that, but even if you have a $400 flight every day for two straight years, you would only spend about a third of a million dollars.  Where did the other 99.9% of the funds go?  I doubt it went into a candidates pocket, but a lot of people made a lot of money off those elections, and President Obama has a lot of people to thank for that half a billion dollars he received to run and win.

So going back to the question, why does Congress care so much about the 1% of the people that has most of the wealth?  Who do you think funds that billion dollar presidential bid?  Who do you think funds most of the politicians elections? Need I say more?

I guess by now I've made my point, but I want to take it a bit farther.  Not all of these donations are nefarious; there are a lot of good people trying to support someone they think will do a lot of good for the Country.  My biggest concerns with how things are going, which I'm sure you all share are this:

Problem 1: If you get that much money from people, you are bound to appease those who donated the money.  This is golden rule 101; if you throw a party and someone hands you a thousand dollar bill at the door.  You sure as heck are going to make sure they're comfortable the whole time, giving them the most attention, and making sure that you invite them back again. 

Problem 2: Candidates with the most money have more leverage to sway the voters - they don't always win, but it makes things very difficult for their competition. 

Problem 3: Does it really take half a billion dollars to run for office?  Do you really need a million kinds of advertisements?  Candidates: if you have a message worth hearing, it will get out.  With social media, online blogs, YouTube videos, Twitter feeds, Facebook, etcetera, etcetera, there are a lot of free and cheap outlets to get your message across.  If you're worth hearing, people will hear, people will spread the word.  All free of charge.  How sad is it that you have to spend half a billion dollars to get your message across.  No wonder people never know what a candidate stands for.  Candidates: Do you really need to fly to five cities in a day to campaign?  Where's the candidate that drives cross-country, stopping wherever he can to spread his message?  Where's the candidate that rides the bus or the train?  Taxi anyone?  If a candidate can't show fiscal restraint while campaigning, how can we expect them to control the ballooning federal budget?  And you know my vote would go to the guy I sat next to on the bus rather than the one I saw on television pompously waving as he gets off a jetliner.

So where does this leave us?  Should we limit campaign contributions?  Should we not vote for people who spend way too much money on elections?  Should we boycott those people and corporations that donate to these elections?  Should we ban the system of election fundraising altogether and allot each candidate an equal sum of money from the government, which is the most fair?  I cannot answer those questions, and quite honestly, the people that need to are those that are benefiting from the system today.  But one thing we can all agree on is this, whether we're the 99%, the 1% or the political candidates gearing up for an election year:  the system's broken.  It's been broken for a while.  We're just spinning in circles.  Will someone finally please stand up and set us straight?

December 5, 2011

2. Warfare

For those of you who know me, I usually don't say anything unless there's something to say.  This is something that really has been bothering me for some time, and doesn't seem to make any sense. Why, with all the advancements that we've made in all areas of our lives, do we still have warring nations?  Why are we still fighting two wars in lands most of us have never stepped foot on?  We of all nations should be holding ourselves accountable for our actions, and should be acting as a role model for all the rest of the world.

Warfare is not only barbaric, it's an abomination.  A handful of men send countless of their brethren to go out and end the lives of people they designate an enemy, who are typically just kids following the same commands from another small group of men.  Every one of those killed are not only human, but have hopes and dreams cut short, grieving families left unattended, and only leave behind bitter memories for those who cared about them.  And if that's not enough, civilians, those who are incapable of protecting themselves, are still being targeted the world over, as if killing them rids the people that rule over them.  They are murdered while going about their daily tasks, going to work, going to school, going to the market, even at home as they lay slumbering in their beds.  Their lives are no less real than yours or mine, and yet, for the sake of the few, they are killed.  And don't think that even today we are above this.  Just go back a few year to the cold war;  do you honestly think we would have had any hesitation about launching nuclear weapons at our enemies'  cities if one of ours were struck first.

You may say we're at war now because we're defending ourselves and the people living in the countries we're fighting.  This may be true, but we must remember that wars historically started by someone or some group of people wanting something that someone else had.  So they go and try to take whatever they want for themselves.  Lands, gold, resources, dreams, they all had a part to play in warfare.  It's amazing how childish humanity has been, and the fact that we've managed to survive this long.  In those cases, would it have killed us to try something much more radical than murdering our neighbors?  Sharing?  And if there is something we can't share,  couldn't we just play a game of football, and the winner takes home whatever it is we're fighting for?  By the way, does anyone even remember what we're fighting for today?

World peace isn't just a dream, it's a serious possibility if we just stop kidding ourselves.  We don't all have to love each other and hold hands, we don't even have to like each other.  We all are different. Each culture has their own uniqueness that often makes us incompatible and prone to dislike or even hatred.  But we have always tended to settle down around people most like us, those who share our ideology and compatibilities.  This is the basis of nationality and community.  Does it mean that we can't benefit from those people we can't stand, people from another city, another state, another nation? And vice versa?  I think it would be in everyone's best interest if we all stopped fighting like children in the school yard and actually try to cooperate like adults.  Just like any reconciliation process, all it takes is an understanding of the other people's situation, somehow finding a common ground everyone can work toward, and an environment that facilitates honesty, trust and cooperation.  If we give a little, they'll give a little back. 

And as far as the enemy of today, you may say they fall under a category of radicals, someone we cannot reason with.  That may be true, but they come from a region that is deeply torn from western interference, triggered by German's prosecution of the Jews, and compounded by the forming of Israel, which took the homeland from its native people.  At this point, hardly any of us remember what the world was like in that time, nor probably do any of the men fighting in the region today.  All that motivates them is a deep seated anger, passed down from their parents and grandparents, and a drive to be part of something bigger, something that gives their lives meaning. Where else can they find satisfaction other than joining the militaries that promise them food, shelter, protection and revenge?  Isn't it time to let that anger go?  So much time has passed that the disputed land in the region now is home to both Israelis and Palestinians alike. They need to find a way to share, or nobody should have it. 

And as far as us warring with nations to liberate the people, I say we let the people decide.  If the people aren't strong enough, and the leadership is subverting or harming its own, then the world needs to stand together as one and charge the leadership with crimes against humanity.  Instead of invading their homeland with legions of soldiers, we'd only need to send a small delegation to arrest the offending parties and try them on a world stage with their own people being the jurors.  If a government is truly guilty, then it's people won't stand in the way of justice, and even the military would be forced to step down if the whole world were against them.  No nation, not even us, would be able to stand up and fight if the rest of the world were truly united against them.  Imagine if there were no more wars between nations than there were wars between New York and North Carolina.  For those counting, that total would be one.

June 17, 2011

1. Humanity

Before we can solve anything, we need to first look at a very important word: Humanity. One of the most overused yet least understood ideologies when talking of solving our current and future problems. Hollywood has used it in numerous films (part of their subversive plot to add thought provoking elements to their productions) Does anyone remember the speech that faux president Thomas J. Whitmore used in the movie Independence Day? It goes something like this: 

“Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in the history of mankind. 'Mankind.' That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can’t be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it’s fate that today is the Fourth of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom… Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution… but from annihilation. We are fighting for our right to live. To exist. And should we win the day, the Fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared in one voice: 'We will not go quietly into the night!' 'We will not vanish without a fight!' We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!”

Hollywood is littered with speeches like that from various movies, and it really makes you think. At least for the two minutes before they get into the action, and everything else if forgotten except for that epic human-alien aerial battle. Yet, if we do stop for a moment and think what mankind and humanity really means, it might strike a chord; more so today than in 1996 when Independence Day was released, when the internet was just being realized. In order to chat with someone across the world, you would most likely have to pick up a phone (and pay an arm and a leg in the process). 

Today, thanks to social media and the quantum speeds of DSL, we chat with people across the world while harvesting virtual carrots in our own computer farm. If we can't get along while we're weeding each other's veggies, then how could we ever get along if for some reason bug-like aliens invaded us with impenetrable force fields? Or more realistically, if the financial markets fall 80%, half of all food production is devastation by droughts and blight, or if a global epidemic begins sweeping the world, a virus that kills one out of every three it infects? That's a bit scarier, And I admit something that keeps me up at night? What would we do in those situations? What is the protocol? If this happened tomorrow, would we be ready?

A lot goes on behind the scenes in government, and I sure as heck hope that they are more productive privately than they are publicly. And I'm sure some global crises have been addressed by international coalitions such as United Nations and NATO ... (which I hear are currently stronger than ever, due to political tensions and economic implications). But if we are to solve any catastrophic events that arises, either man made or other, we will need the cooperation of everyone, no matter what nationality. In a world where physical boundaries are dissolved in cyberspace, the borders we once held so dear are fading. I hope this is something we can embrace as a species, for does it really matter if you live in the United States or in China? Is the difference between an Alabama farmer and a New York real-estate agent greater than that of a Chinese merchant, and a Mexican small business owner? What prevents the Chinese merchant from selling equipment to the Alabama farmer, who sells produce to the Mexican small business owner who makes a killing and retires to New York and finds a home via the real-estate agent? Didn't they all just work together without knowing it? Didn't they all just make each other's lives a little easier? Why couldn't we all work together more often?

I guess the problem with that is government; an institution designed to protect the people they govern from other institutions governing other people. When you think about it, most everyone would prefer to reside where they feel most comfortable if they can. It's why the Mexican small business owner longs for his village home when he's finds himself stuck in the bustle of the city. It's why that real-estate agent wrinkles his nose when his car breaks down near the home of the farmer. We are most comfortable when we are surrounded by people that are like us. That understand us. This is how physical borders are formed. People settle down and want to protect their way of life. And for the most part, this makes sense. But just because we are different from each other, doesn't mean that we can't work together, and it most certainly doesn't mean that don't share each other's best interests.

It is my hope though, that moving forward into the great new connected world, that the people whom governments govern, will eventually realize the power of cooperation, and that the governments themselves will finally set aside their differences, which are no more real than the crops half of you are watering right now. Wouldn't that be a sight? 

June 13, 2011

Introduction

The world as we know it today will soon disappear.   We are constantly being pulled into a void, a new creation, that's only just begun to emerge.  Formed by our own hands, we shape its destiny; the future of which is limitless, awesome, and profound.  But the problem plaguing this creation is that there so many architects behind it, a very few foremen managing the work, and an army of laborers toiling furiously to... well, nobody knows.  Of course I'm referring to the very media in which I'm conveying this message, the vast unknown of ones and zeros that make up the building blocks of this brand new world. 

Electronics, which were once a convenience, now run our lives more than ever, and their manufacturers' are furiously fawning over themselves to find more ways to get us to immerse ourselves in their products.  They are selling computers, phones, consoles, apps, games, media and appliances.  Heck, they are even selling us cars, homes, and an occasional space flight.  This is only the beginning, and depending on your point of view, it's not necessarily a bad thing.  Imagine what good we can do if we start putting the pieces together, imagine a world where a hospital tweets that it has a heart available from a donor and lets every other hospital around know immediately?  Now, imagine that there is a dying mother two hundred miles away in need of it, and instead of driving it for 3 hours, or chartering an expensive plane, you send the heart off in one of those make-shift Kinect helicopters that guides itself to the recipient on its own?  Then when it gets there, it's retrieved by R2-D2, and then surgery is performed by C-3PO.  Yeah, yeah, it's a stretch, but that's part of the reality we face when planning for the future.  

Common sense is something that we, as a human race, seemed to have overlooked for many years.  We all will disagree on many things, but there is some base understanding, something common that we can all share even in the most difficult of problems.  In order to get to the root of any problem, we must strip down it's complexities and make sense of the very core of the issue.  Often, it's very easy, but it requires you to look past the obvious, the solutions on the surface that only treat the symptoms but not the disease.  And if humanity is to thrive in an era charged with confronting some of the most difficult challenges ever thrust on us, a little common sense won't hurt.


June 12, 2011