Politics

The population is starting to compare the Blindly Patriotic American to the Extremist Zealot Muslim. To the outside it seems as if the slightest insult against America will incur the wrath of a thousand men, a thousand bombs, and a hundred thousand lives. Even on the inside the slightest hint of dissent against the machine is met with rabid patriototic ferocity. A foaming mouth of red white a blue, gnashing star spangled teeth.

I don't understand why people have a hard time understanding it.

Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Instant Runoff Voting

Much speculation and analysis has been made about the 2000 Presidential Election. The bitterly contested election is still the subject of much fervent debate, especially among Democrats. Given the wide dissatisfaction felt for the current administration, especially among those who supported Al Gore in 2000, it's no surprise that the subject of the would-be Gore presidency in 2000 still stirs such anger and controversy. Some good has come from this debate, as old ideas such as the necessity for the Electoral College in a modern age of universal suffrage and new ideas such as electronic voting have been called into question and analyzed. As voting is one of the few means we, as citizens, have for directly influencing the government, it is important that the aspects of voting be closely monitored, analyzed, and understood.

While I, too, would have much preferred a Gore presidency over the current administration, there is one aspect of the debate where my fellow Gore supporters have erred: the false belief that Ralph Nader "robbed" Al Gore of the election. A minority of Democrats feel that Mr. Nader's and the Green Party's platform of strong environmental protection too closely encroached on Mr. Gore's strong environmental policy, thus "splitting" the votes of environmentalists, a group that traditionally votes with the Democrats. Due to the extremely slim margin needed for Gore to win Florida, a shift in a small number of Green Party voters would have given Mr. Gore the presidency.

While glancing over Digg this morning, I happened upon a post that linked to a blog entry entitled, "Got a problem? Ask the public schools to solve it!" The blog post refers to an article that appeared in the September 2007 edition of Harper's Magazine entitled, "Schoolhouse Crock: Fifty Years of Blaming America's Educational System for Our Stupidity", written by Peter Schrag. The blog post asserts that one of the four major points of the article is that the "[p]ublic education system is trying to do something unprecedented" by "educat[ing] every child — regardless of race, creed, socio-economic level, family background or mental and physical challenges." I found it absurd that a nationwide magazine would publish a story stating that America's free public education was "unprecedented" in a world where other countries offer free college education. As such, I immediately went out and bought a copy of Harper's to see if this was the case.

After reading the actual article, I must say that the blog entry misses the point of the article entirely. Mr. Schrag's piece goes far beyond the four simple 'important points' the post identifies. Furthermore, the first 'important point' presented by the post, the one that motivated me to purchase the magazine to begin with, is completely inaccurate. Mr. Schrag never expresses an idea that what the American educational system is doing is anything extraordinary. Nearly every industrialized country in the world offers its citizens free education, with many offering them a free college education as well. To state that the US public school system is doing something unique and "unprecedented" by educating all of its citizens, is, at best, ignorant, and at worse, is a gross misinterpretation of the article and represents a dangerous America-centric world view that ignores the achievements of other countries. After reading Mr. Schrag's article, I can say this 'important point' is never made in the article.

In light of last Friday's discount rate cut made by the Federal Reserve to sooth the nerves of traders and mortgage brokers, a question returned to my mind. This question has puzzled me for quite some time, disturbing my slumber since I was old enough to grasp the seemingly subtle, yet ultimately obvious interaction between business, the government, and people:

Why has America developed an inverted social democracy: a democracy which values the welfare of corporations and other juristic persons¹ far more than that of real persons?

Once upon a time, there existed a realm where ideas and arguments weren’t condensed into fifteen-second sound bites. The weight of arguments were not measured in the treasure, popularity, or opinion of kings, but the soundness and validity of the underlying facts. During that age, an orator’s ability to gather information and wield facts as dangerous daggers poised to strike the throats of the despot, dictator, and denier alike was sought and feared, honored and coveted. Victory on this battlefield of ideas and logic was not measured in net profits, “exceeding analysts expectations”, PAC contributions, approval ratings, or House and Senate seats won or lost. No, victory was the triumph of the most logically sound idea. This idea most likely did not start life before debate, but was the offspring of an orgy involving public discourse, debate, and deliberation; the idea impregnated in the minds of those courageous enough to think freely, seek new avenues to solutions, and blaze their own path. Only after this free exchange of information has taken place can any group truly arrive at the most logically sound, fair, and appropriate solution to any problem.

Today’s political, ideological, and information landscape has strayed far from that ideal portrayed in Raphael’s masterpiece. Over 2300 years since the death of the great philosophers, we’ve become a people where money and manipulation reign supreme; the great metropolises reduce to serving merely as menageries for our materialism.