A World of Hurt: The Israel-Palestine Debate

Hello again, my readers!



Now that the religious holidays are over, I have decided to put my monthly large post up today. As noted in the title, I will be explaining my views on the widely known Israel-Palestine debate. It is a very controversial topic (at least around here it is), and therefore requires special attention. This week's quote comes from the novel A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, a wonderful book about a world dominated by youth crime where a character known as Alex is taken into a "reform" program. I won't say more, but it has an amazing language scheme, and is well worth anyone's time. To avoid trouble, I should note that it is a very mature book, and nobody of young age should be anywhere near it. And that is all I have to say on that.



To start with, we need to examine the very origins of the debate before I go further on how I feel about it. I view the problems as starting in the 20th century, and coming into focus through the two world wars and the time between them. During the First World War, anti-Semitic treatment of Jews by Axis powers became apparent, as well as by some Allied and neutral powers (http://www.jewishhistory.org/world-war-i-and-the-jews/). While barely noticed then, taken into context this was the beginning of the proposed need for a safe Jewish homeland. Between the wars, most of my readers should know the world went to hell. The 1920s may have been nice for America, but not for everyone else. Nothing got better for global populations when the US economy tanked. As huge pressures rode on multiple societies to find solutions to the economic crises, an overwhelmingly right-winged authoritarian response took place. While the US chose to elect a left-winged leader four times who rode on the principle of fixing the laissez-faire structure of the economy to blame for the crisis, the rest of the world wasn't so lucky. We must remember that these were desperate times, and that other places had it even worse than us. Many countries chose to blame groups of people rather than accept that their systems, which they had designed, may have had some fault to them. And after World War 1, some places had the deck stacked in favor of radicalism anyway; the Treaty of Versailles punished Germany harshly for the war, putting resentment in place of each dollar paid (deutschmarks, in this case). At this point, anti-Semitism was already a lurking force, so blaming Jews was no problem in central Europe. While not as rampant in Italy, after a fascist leader rose to power and brought down the Weimar Republic (Hitler, duh), the propaganda sprang up all over the place, with little internal opposition that had any power. While Hirohito Japan didn't have this problem, they also had no Jews, and didn't do anything about the Holocaust. After World War 2 ended, 6 million Jews had died, approximately 60 to 65 percent of all Jews at the time (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/holocaust.htm).



And here is where the Palestinian place comes into play. While most people concern themselves with the amount of Jews dead, a larger total estimate of Muslims was killed. While not as huge percentage-wise, it is a significant point. Both religions suffered harshly in the war. When it was over, it became increasingly obvious to world powers that in order for Jews to even survive in this world, they needed to have some country to call their homeland and someplace to be safe. After the UN was formed, the organization gave the UK a Middle East mandate to occupy much of the region for a few years until everything was stabilized and ready for the formation of states. And in 1948, both Israel and Palestine were formed. It was believed that the division of lands would suit both peoples and allow for a long-awaited peace that the world had lacked for decades. The world got no such peace. Upon creation of the two states, Palestine and other Middle Eastern countries rejected the right for a Jewish state to exist, and shortly afterward small attacks on Israel began.



World powers were shocked. They had assumed the two religious groups would get along at least with tolerance (at this point, most anti-Semitism came from Christians and/or Europeans). They assumed this hatred of the Jews as the main sticking point for the new problem. While certainly not the main root of the problem, it is undeniable that hatred exists on both sides and drives the struggles along. As remaining British-mandate countries gained independence, most sided with Palestine strongly on the issue. The UK and US swore to protect the tiny state of Israel and its denizens from attacks, with America providing the brunt of weaponry and economic support to the resource-dry country. Palestine didn't react well, to say the least. At this point, small numbers began the practice of Jihad upon Israel, a well known practice in modern society. The push for liquidation of Israel continued to build until the Arab-Israeli War in 1967, known commonly as the Six Day War. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan formed a military alliance and launched attacks on Israel in the hopes of "liberating" Palestinians and destroying the country altogether. Other countries of the Middle East declared support for the aggressors. What follows is the reason this debate still exists. During the war, Israel had pushed into Gaza and the West Bank against enemy troops, both for defensive and offensive reasons. When the war ended, the occupation didn't.


Arab nations were infuriated. Not only had the effort to wipe Israel out failed, but now Palestine appeared to no longer exist. It was undeniable that the problems had only just begun, and that the situation was more serious now than ever. Things improved slightly when Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip in 2005, but the issue remains. The two sides are currently as follows: the "pro-Israel" side, which advocates an eventual creation of a Palestinian state, but not at the current time for various reasons. Extremists here often call for a permanent Israeli state that envelops Gaza and the West Bank, as well as its current territory. The other side, the "pro-Palestine" side, calls for an immediate creation of a democratic Palestinian state in wake of decades of poor existence. Extremists here still call for the end to Israel and the takeover of lands by Palestinians. And now, what you all have waited for, my side.



In an earlier post, I noted that I am pro-Israel. To be more specific, I do believe that a Palestinian state must be created due to the conditions endured by its people. I see a need for a country named Palestine if there is ever to be long-lasting peace in the region. And currently, I am fine with the PA (Palestinian Authority) leadership in the West Bank. The reason I don't see a Palestinian state rising soon is due to Hamas. As is well known, Hamas is a militant political faction which won majority power in the Gaza strip during elections in 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4214375.stm). Hamas is also known for being the main source of suicide bombers towards Israel, along with being hard-lined towards the very country at certain times, generally when pressured. While it may have support there, I fear the omen they bring with them. Were Palestine to become a state, both leadership from the West Bank and Gaza would take over the new country. And with a faction that bears the brunt of current attacks on Israel in a true leadership role, the hope for peace would be slim. It's hard to know exactly what would happen due to speculation, but I have fear about the worst. In a good scenario, Palestinian leaders would hold true to peace between the two countries and the world could move on from one of its most tantalizing issues. On the other hand, upon independence Palestine could also declare war on Israel, receiving support from Arab allies and others. The US and some other powers like the UK would side with Israel, forming another horrible war in the Middle East this world really can't handle. Things could get progressively worse from there. While racial and religious hatred would once again brew between the two original combatants, the war could bring tensions between the US and its adversaries to surface, possibly leading to a third world war. While this is not my main fear, I am a pacifist, and any war at all is unfavorable to me.


While I know most people would say it is a bad thing to live in fear, it is something that drives my opinion, at least in this issue (and rarely in others). Until I see better prospects in Gaza leadership, I cannot endorse the creation of Palestine due to trepidation over war. The last thing I want to hear about these days is that wholesale military efforts are being taken between Palestine and Israel. Believe me; I want nothing more than peace. And the day Hamas loses majority, you can count me pro-Palestine. However, until that day comes I will favor those who oppose immediate Palestinian independence. And while I don't always agree with the arguments my peers make for my side, I have little choice until the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip put a less militant, more negotiable party into strength. As such, this is my view of the issue.



That is all for this week, and I hope I have given a comprehensive analysis that fulfills all of what my readers desired from me on this topic. If you feel that you have a question, comment, et cetera you can leave it in the comments here. I also have a Facebook, an email (zerospintop@live.com), and a twitter if you would prefer those modes of communication instead. This is SuperJew McLovin signing off, and Happy New Year!

Blood for Oil: The U.S. Role in the Middle East

Welcome back again, my readers!

This week's topic, as obvious in the title, is the role of the U.S. in the broad Middle East region, from past actions to what needs to be done now and in the future. This week's quote was inspired by me, who upon falling while walking on the sidewalk on Friday, tried to make myself look better to my peers by saying that. It did garner a laugh, so I view my efforts as a success.

Now, to the topic at hand. The USA has played a big part in developments in the Middle East for a long time, mostly since the state of Israel was created in 1948. Ever since then, our two countries have maintained strong economic and diplomatic ties, for a bilateral benefit. The relationship benefits Israel by giving it strong, ensured trade, easy technological access and advancement opportunities, and military backing from a large, powerful country. For the US, it gives a foothold in an important geographic region, as well as making the US look good for protecting the homeland of one of the world's smallest religions, Judaism. For those that are blind and deaf, this does cause problems for both parties as well. Countries that oppose Israel take harsh stances against the US, sometimes causing war. Decreasing favor for American policy rides strong in the Arab-dominated region. And aid to Israel is a burden on the US every year. But no matter what, it is obvious by now that this relationship won't be changing too soon. The US will consistently support Israel and an eventual two-state policy in the foreseeable future. And while Israel depends on the US, because the relationship is fairly static there is not too much I can say on it, other than I support it. I also support the two-state policy, although I'm not entirely sure that now is the time for it to be enacted. But more on that belief next week.

As for the rest of the region, there is much to cover. I'll start with our wars in the Middle East. Currently, we still retain troops in Afghanistan because our war there is not yet over. Our troops in Iraq will all be pulled out by the end of the year, officially ending our operations there. Drone strikes continue in Pakistan and Yemen, along with spying missions done on Iran. I'm pretty sure that all this shows that we like having military presence in the Middle East. Whether we deny it or not, we always maintain some shadow in the region. In times of peace, that specter is present in the military support to Israel. At other times, it shows in our attacks on suspected terrorists or dissidents in different countries. Unfortunately, this doesn't garner us any good tidings. The constant watchdog effect our military pressures on Middle Eastern countries only serves to hurt our image in the eyes of the populace. Who among us would feel safer with troops on the streets and army aircraft overhead? I do believe that our pulling out of Iraq is a good idea, but we need to do more. We need to leave Afghanistan. It's also become obvious recently that Pakistan probably doesn't want us in their airspace (http://www.digtriad.com/news/national/article/203331/175/US-Troops-Vacate-Pakistan-Airbase). And while Yemen struggles to consolidate civilian power now that Saleh has stepped down, I'm sure that soon enough they'll want us to end drone strikes in their country too. However, we still have conservatives who always maintain a stance saying that we must stay in Afghanistan, and that drone strikes are the only way to get rid of Al-Qaeda operatives effectively. But does that truly matter? You cannot kill off an idea like terrorism. It's impossible, and it has been proven. Despite our best efforts, we could not kill off communism, even after decades of trying. We also cannot kill off terrorism. As such, no matter how many drones we fly we will never destroy Al-Qaeda outright. Even if we did, terrorism would still exist. It simply wouldn't have a brand name. And why do we need a presence in Afghanistan? It's pretty clear that our army does not ensure peace in the country, whether we wish it would or not. Sure, if we leave they may adopt a government that we don't completely love. But honestly, it is not our place to control them. If it has the support of the people, then who are we to tear down their system?

Should we stay to maintain a foothold in the region? Hell no. I seriously doubt us taking action in China, India, or Turkmenistan. We have no real reason to do so. As for Iran, if we really wanted a stable place to attack from we could just ship missiles to Saudi Arabia. We are, after all, allies. If we are going to take action on Iran, it is best made from a place that already hates them to some extent and has a relatively stable, powerful system. Also on Iran, we have had some serious tensions for a long time. The main reasoning for this hatred was the US support of the Shah of Iran (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp) during most of the 1950's through the 1970's. An instigated coup against Mohammad Mossadegh, a democratically elected Iranian leader, was the start of this. Afterwards, the Shah took power, beginning a harsh reign that was in US favor at the time, mostly due to the Shah's opposition to communism. This was the Cold War, after all. Unfortunately, this was the biggest mistake the US has ever made in the Middle East. Growing resentment towards the Shah and the US peaked in 1979 when a massively popular Islamic revolution gripped the enormous country. The Shah fled, allowing Ruhollah Khomeini to sweep religious conservatives into power. Soon, the Iranian hostage crisis followed, deepening the hatred and mistrust further. Nothing got better during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's, when Reagan provided support for both sides in a "double containment" effort (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/the-debris-of-dual-contai_b_203920.html) that showed both countries just how much we were a threat to them. It's no wonder Hussein didn't like us. This made things with Iran just worse and worse. Things got no better when Khomeini died and the even more conservative Khamenei took the reins, conducting Iran to where it is today. My stance on what has happened between us is that we are to blame for Iran's hatred of us. We have done terrible things there for a long time, and there is no way to repay Iranians for our sins against them. And for any Iranians reading this, I know my apology doesn't mean much, but I can ensure its sincerity. Someday, perhaps, we'll learn to treat Iran a little better, and maybe things will start improving there and towards the US.

Lastly, I'd like to address US support of dictators and the Arab Spring in the Middle East. We've got a bad record on the former account. Believe it or not, we supported Gaddafi for a time (http://links.org.au/node/2179), while also bombing the crap out of Libya simultaneously. But when people started rioting just this year, we declared support for rebel groups. A similar case applies to Egypt (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/01/201113020265198814.html). We have propped up what we considered beneficial to us in the Middle East, claiming often that it was in the name of democracy. For those of us familiar with history, you should know that the Middle East got little democracy for most of the 20th century. Not much changed with the new century, either, until the Arab Spring. This is something I view as a high note. While I hate what we've been doing in the Middle East for decades, the fact that we supported the Arab Spring is a good thing. When the people finally did start calling for true democracy we stood with them, an accomplishment on our part. We rarely stand for anything that threatens our power in the region. Yet when faced with a choice, I'm glad we made the right one this time.

Well, that is all for this week, and I hope you enjoyed reading. If you want to leave a comment, question, or anything else you can do so in the comments section. You can also contact me using Facebook, twitter, or my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.

Godless Heathenism: Why I Choose Atheism

Happy greetings to my readers!

This week, I take another personal issue to the people, one that many have asked me about over the years. Namely, that I am an Atheist. As such, I endure questions and even attacks about why I don't believe in God, along with why I believe religion in general is not a good idea. I have decided to take a break from the political, and attack the philosophical and religious side of my interests. I plan to explain to you all the logical fallacies I see in religion, as well as why I think that religion is just another thing that screws with our daily lives. On a side note, this week's quote is taken from a photo on tumblr.com, of some Iranian protester with bread sticks tied to his hat. While I can't remember who posted it, it struck me as funny, so there you go. I have no affiliation to tumblr (although I do have an account) and take no responsibility for the quote.

Alright, let's begin. I'll start with an obvious question that many people ask as they get older: Why does God allow so many terrible things to happen in the world, like human trafficking, terrorism, violence, death, disease, the list goes on and on. When you ask a religious person or authority, many times they will respond with time honored responses like "everything happens for a reason," or because "it's part of God's plan." Because most religions don't allow God to be questioned, it is a perfect response, within the limitations of religion. But once this response is taken out of the bounds of religion, it is exposed for what it truly is; avoiding the question. Or so I view it, anyway. Whenever people who are religious cannot answer a question that destabilizes the foundations of their faith, they turn to God, and questioning God is a sin. Right? No, that is wrong. "Questioning God" is not a sin, at least not anymore. For those that haven't noticed, the Dark Ages ended centuries ago, and religion no longer holds that kind of power. Just like politicians are held responsible today, so too is religion. The goal of all religions is to answer all of life's questions, be they easy or hard. When a religion cannot answer all questions, it has failed in its purpose and is therefore null and void.

My answer to the above question is simple, although somewhat pessimistic: All these terrible things happen because we allow them to happen, not because of some phony God. We kill each other, and we commit crimes against each other of our own volition. It doesn't occur because God wants it to. It happens because we choose it to happen. We bring most of life's horrors upon ourselves. It's a sad fact of humanity, but we must face it. And the faster we realize that we are the problem and not God, the faster we can come up with solutions.

Another thing that I don't like about religions is that they all treat people unequally. Christianity says that Gays are to be put to death. Islam does it similarly. Both treat women as lesser beings than men (though not to the extent you may be led to believe). Even Judaism, my favorite one, requires that women and men be separated in synagogue and other social interactions. This may be just Orthodox Judaism, but the fact of the matter is that all religions divide people. One question I like to ask is this: if all people can get into heaven, why do certain people get better lives on earth? What have they done to deserve stronger rights than their peers? Once again, religion has no true answer, with most clerics of my youth simply replying that "it is tradition." Yeah, well witch trials were a tradition for a while in the USA. That doesn't make them right, and it doesn't mean things can't change like they did with witch trials. My view is as follows: because we die and simply rot in the ground, we have all the more reason to make our lives here better. We need not separate people to ensure salvation, if salvation doesn't exist. We don't need to hurt, kill, or ostracize our brethren to make ourselves appear better to a nonexistent God. We need to bring ourselves together to make our lives better. Life is all we get, or so I believe. Why waste it with hate?

That is my biggest beef with religion: the hate it inspires. Ever since the start, religion has done nothing but divide people and cause racism and violence. The Dark Ages were characterized by harsh scientific repression by the Catholic Church, which used religious authority to control the people for centuries. At the same time, hundreds of years of holy wars were waged during the Crusades out of hate for Muslims by the same groups. And while Christianity may have inspired Renaissance art, that doesn't make up for those crimes. Nowadays, radical Islamist fundamentals wage attacks on Jews and Christians alike in the name of Jihad, in order to achieve an afterlife in heaven. Even in modern America, a place where the constitution decries a bond between religion and politics, religion holds political clout. I'll address that soon, but first I'd like to note the hate religion still inspires here. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and all minority religions get bullied across the country simply because they are different. Especially now, Muslims receive the brunt of our hate. For example, the Ground Zero Mosque, remember that? We all lost our shit because local Islamic leaders wanted to build a Mosque near Ground Zero (note: not directly on it, like assholes claim). Don't believe that? Well here you go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/just-how-far-is-the-groun_b_660585.html. Conservative leaders at the time claimed that they believed strongly that Muslims had the full rights to build a Mosque wherever they pleased with proper legal framework. But simultaneously, they asked this question: should they? This religious hatred allowed political figures to both defend and attack religious rights, sometimes in the same sentence. This is bullshit. The fact that we can even tie the September 11 bombers' religious fanaticism to the simple building of a mosque is astonishing. It just exposes the extreme hate we suffer from. Who's to blame? Religion.

And religious hate screws people over in other places, too. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strongly theocratic governments which repress their people, especially Iran. In Saudi Arabia, at least they have some support for their system. Iran? No, not quite as much. And while radicalism may persist in Iran, the truth is that most Iranians today hate Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. They are completely unrepresentative leaders that restrict their country. Saudi Arabia is not necessarily any better. Women can't even drive there. They can't leave the house without a man. Sure, they may be able to vote soon, but the steps are small and far too slow. A HUGE amount of religious hate surfaces on the Palestine issue, with small groups on both sides becoming indifferent to the other over religious intolerance. Additionally, for those that don't know Baha'ism is also persecuted in Iran without real reason. Europe, while a much safer place religiously speaking, is overwhelmingly Christian. The European Union has laws in place that make it illegal to pronounce statements delegitimizing or denying the Holocaust (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/world/europe/19iht-eu.4.5359640.html). The fact that they even need these laws in place sickens me. What makes it worse for me especially is that in America we don't have these laws. We allow the American Nazi Party to exist. And don't give me bullshit about their right to free speech. Those people DESERVE to die. The fact that Nazism is still a force fills me with dread. All this religious hate of all different people only serves to cause violence and divide along lines we don't need.

And so, my atheist beliefs come into place. We can prove that the universe has been created absent of a God (with the Big Bang Theory, which is also a hilarious TV show). And if it was, then how would the Garden of Eden worked out? There were only two people, meaning that no matter how many kids they had eventually Adam and Eve would have died. Meaning that in order for humanity to survive, there is going to be a ton of incest. The genetic disorders would have killed us off early on if the story was true. But, obviously, it is not. If we can see that we have the ability to make this world a better place, maybe we would be a little more active in doing so. Many people say "hey, let God handle it." No. You must be the one to make a change. It doesn't require much. Recycle a little, if you get a pet get it from the shelter, donate a little cash to charity. Help the homeless with a little change when you pass by instead of ignoring the dying person you see. If everyone did this, we could start to progress a little faster, and maybe things would be a little bit easier on everyone if religion never existed at all.

Well, that sums up this week, and I hope everyone enjoyed my response. If you have questions, comments, or whatever, post in the comments section. Or, you can send me something on Facebook or Twitter. My email is still zerospintop@live.com, so that is all. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.

Let My People Rule: The Arab Spring and the Fall of Despotism

Greetings to all my wonderful viewers once again!



This week, I tackle the issue of the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa. As most of you should know by now, the Arab spring refers to the series of movements across the Arab world that has been occurring since protesting began in Tunisia. They represent the will of the people rising up against autocrats and poor governance in the region that has not reflected the desires of the majority, sometimes for decades. Because the movements cover a total of 21 countries, I cannot do each one individually, so I'm splitting them into 4 categories: successes and failures, and North Africa and the true middle east (because technically, the Middle East begins at the Sinai Peninsula). These successes and failures span all the countries, and they are not absolute. A success signifies that the people have begun to push reforms in the region, and that the rights/freedoms of said people are increasing. A success means progress towards a stronger system, and a fairer system. A failure means that the people either couldn't create necessary reforms or governments repressed them enough to end or suspend movements. It means that progress has yet to be made, but still can be. Also, this week's quote is from the How It Should Have Ended (HISHE) series on YouTube, the harry potter one specifically. I do not take ownership or any claim to the quote, as it was produced by HISHE and is their intellectual property. Alright, let's begin.



We start my analysis in North Africa, an Arab dominated region that in some cases has been plagued by autocracy for a long ass time. This is where in December 2010 protests over high unemployment, corruption, widespread poverty, and high food prices began against the then Ben Ali led government, according to this site: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html. By 2011, Ben Ali dismissed the government, allowing a national unity system to be swept into power under Fouad M'bazaa. After the success of these protests, those in Egypt began, leading to decade’s long dictator Hosni Mubarak being forced from the reigns in favor of the military leaders. Further protests and demonstrations took place in Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan against a multitude of issues depending on the country. This forced the powers that be in North Africa to take a look at how rule of the region had been made, and sometimes forced action in the positive. Other times, in the negative. Overall, I will vote for North Africa as a success in the context of the Arab Spring.



Here's why: as time has passed, each and every North African country touched by these movements has actually been forced into some action due to the strength and numbers of dissidents in the region. Reforms have been made, from simple constitutional reforms/elections like that of Morocco (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mo.html) to complete secession in Sudan and wholesale revolt in Libya and Egypt. And while problems still remain, like Bashir's Islamist repression of secularists in Sudan (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/su.html), most of them have been at the very least addressed. For a very long time, military leaders and despots controlled the North African Maghreb. Now, the power of the people has finally been forced forth, and progress is soon to follow. The trouble, however, is now the transfer of power. While Algeria and Morocco do not have to deal with this problem, the other countries (Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and South Sudan) have now been thrust into new governance, with little idea of how to truly run a country. While the idealism is certainly great, there is the constant omen of possible repression looming on these peoples. The situation is different for all of them. For Libya, it means shaking off the effects of a 40 year long dictatorship by a dude crazier than Lady Gaga. For South Sudan, it means building a brand new nation after years of Islamist repression. For Egypt and Tunisia, it means removing military rule for true civilian will. As such, it is most certainly going to be difficult to rebuild now that most of these countries have experienced sufficient instability in the past months. It is already obvious that the transfer of power is difficult and dangerous; the Egyptian military holds power most likely because it fears populist conservative movements that will attack the country's secular liberals. While I cannot say whether this fear is rightly founded, I can say this: whether they like it or not, the majority must rule, and if that means liberals and ultra-conservatives are going to share power, then so be it. It has become clear that both groups have the main goal or removing military control, and with that banner they are united. With now stabilized countries like Algeria and Morocco leading the pack, it's time for freedom in the region, no matter what it takes.



Alright, now I will address the true Middle East. Just as a note, Israel is excluded from this, mostly because it remained untouched by uprisings. Because Israel has long had a stable state with a strong, effective system, it has not experienced populist attacks. As such the Arab Spring did not truly change it, though it most certainly changed Israel's neighbors. Anyway, the true Middle East includes: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It is most certainly a larger region, affected deeply by the Arab Spring and separate crises of power. From Assad in Syria to Saleh in Yemen, the region suffers under harsh, repressive leadership, and has for a long time. Much of the movements here have both against corruption, as well as removal of crap leadership. And while it pains me to say this, I have to give the Middle East an overall failure of change and progress. Why? Because, despite some changes and progress, the Middle East has yet to free itself from numerous powerful autocrats, and for many countries deep problems remain. While a portion of the countries have made progress, like Jordan (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jo.html), most have been repressed into keeping their wills quiet. For example, let's look at places where unrepresentative government plagues the populace, namely Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen. In Lebanon, Hezbollah, a recognized terrorist organization, has retained a presence and power in the country for several years, impeding progress and violently demonstrating their views against that of the majority in response to the Arab Spring (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html). In Syria, President Assad has retained a tight grip on his country, using strong military force to back himself against increasingly angered protesters demanding his ouster. In Yemen, despite 33 year long leader Saleh "stepping down," he still has a huge control over the Yemeni system, leading to a continuation of his policies (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ym.html). In Iran, large scale protests against the long ultra-conservative, repressionist government were met with harsh military strikes that quickly silenced the people, not of their own volition but of fear of retribution, leaving the control of the country to Supreme Leader and Ayatollah Khamenei, who has ruled since Khomeini died in 1989 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html). All these governments and others continue to shut out the voices of the majority in favor of those in power. They attack all those that threaten their positions, and retain strength in their respective countries no matter what. As such, on a full scale the Middle East still has much to do in terms of giving power to the people, and making the Middle East a free system for its people.



And, that is all for this week. I hope my inclusion of sources with each fact this time has made you all consider my positions a little more openly, and I also hope that soon peace in the Middle East and North Africa will prevail. Progress has been made, but it must continue. In order for freedom to win, repression must fail, and poor leaders must be replaced to reflect majorities in the regions. In time, I believe this is possible. Until that time, my heart goes out to all those suffering, in the hopes that justice will be swift and soon. Well, I'm done here, and if you wish to express something to me/the community leave a comment. You can also check my Facebook or my twitter, or my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is Superjew McLovin signing off.

From Democracy to Communism: My Reformation

A greeting to all my readers!



This week begins my practice of addressing a larger issue each month with a larger post. This month's big issue, after much pressuring, is my ideology of communism. I have been consistently asked to explain why I believe in communism. The reason I can't give an answer for that question on the spot is because it is a ridiculously long answer, which takes a while to say and would bore the common listener. As such, it is both easier to compose and read here on my blog. By the way, this week's quote is by Leon Trotsky, a famous Russian communist advocate back in the days of Lenin. After Lenin died, Trotsky could have taken over, but through mischievous ways and unethical moves, Stalin was able to ensure his exile and eventual assassination, making Stalin leader of Russia at the time. This is why I don't like Stalin. But more on that soon.



We begin my explanation with my history with political ideology and theories of government. It all starts in 7th grade history class. On one particular day, my teacher had described to my class the three kinds of economies a country can pursue. They were the traditional kind, which generally depended on bartering and the trade of traditional goods alone. There was free market type, which allowed the economy to rest solely on the free market without government interference, and the state-run economy, which had government deciding every move a country made in the economy, and controlled everything. I rejected the traditional one, thinking that it seemed like a stupid move for any country. Why limit trade to only a few things, and why no money? It just seemed bad at the time. The free market one sounded nice at first, but then I became aware that the economy would be open to all fluctuations of the free market, including drops. I thought that would make a country unsafe, and as such was a bad option. I also didn't like the state-run option because I thought total control might be bad (I had not particular reasoning at the time). My teacher noted that the USA mixed free market and state-run models, but leaned more towards the former. However, I still felt that having portions of the economy open to fluctuations was a bad idea, what I like to see as a symbol of what was to come. While I didn't become politically active for a few more years, I like to see this as the genesis of my interest with so called "big government."



Fast forward to the period of 8th to 9th grade. During these two years, my county teaches students US history in two halves, one each year. Very easy and somewhat slow-paced, this is where my background with our history came about. So for these two years, my political ideology began to take shape. At each major issue outlined in the classes, I generally sided with the proponents of big government and change throughout American history. I took notice that liberalism generally represented my values, while conservatism threw my values in the trash. It is obvious which I sided with. However, I didn't feel like siding with either party in particular, because I saw that the ideological base of them fluctuated through history. As such, loyalty to my ideology surpassed fealty to any party. I hold this value still today. Democrats do good most of the time, but not all of the time. By the end of 9th grade, I had a solid grasp of what I considered to be my beliefs. I was a liberal, although I did have differing opinions on a few issues. I did not want marijuana legalized, and I did not care for the minimum wage. I still hold these values as well. But if I'm communist now, then why, you ask? As for the marijuana thing, it's not because I think it will necessarily make our country's drug problems worse (we're already number one for use/consumption of weed, cocaine, meth, and some other things like ecstasy). It's because I believe that if we legalize one drug, soon the masses will call for more, and we will be legalizing increasingly dangerous drugs left and right. Soon, nothing will be illegal, and our drug dependency will riddle our people with problems. Truthfully, I believe that marijuana should be banned for all non-medical purposes. I also believe alcohol and cigarettes should go, too. Why make an industry of something that poisons us in more ways than one (they're unhealthy, cause rises in health insurance coverage and lower average life expectancy, etc.)? But, I still believed in democracy as the absolute best option for any country. I had much to learn.



Now we go through 10th grade and the summer after it. 10th grade I took AP NSL, which was an AP course on American government. It taught me and my peers a comprehensive look at how we run things here in the US of A. I liked much of what I saw. At the same time, persistent flaws in our system would crop up, undermining how we run things. For example, we have an indirect democracy where the Electoral College votes for candidates over the people. This promotes a 2 party, winner take all system that further degrades the efficiency of our system. I also noticed that, throughout much of history, there were consistent groups operating in or through government to achieve not so good ends. For example, the Alien and Sedition Acts. These were not passed in favor of the American public. The south, during the civil war. The southern democrats during the civil rights movement. The Republicans during the depression. Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes. Carter and LBJ (sort of). These groups/people and more would consistently block progress or would force regression to occur in our country, sometimes with rather violent or horrible results. I identified them solely with how they affected us, not what party they were attributed to. Most often, I saw conservatism being the proponent of regression and attacks on change throughout history. It became obvious that they were consistently wrong on most cases, and therefore were not to be sided with. However, the problems with our government from the start troubled me the most. I questioned how we could have an effective democracy that was indirect and allowed for no third parties. I questioned how we could run the government correctly if only two main ideologies were allowed to have power. I questioned how we could favor the public if people and corporations with lots of money could simply buy influence in government. I truly wished to know how these problems could be resolved without destroying us from within.



Unknowingly at the time, these questions would release the forces and ideas that would eventually make me the communist I am today. By the end of the year, my understanding of the government and its history was complete, and I had become more leftist. However, months before the year ended, I began to think: "I wonder how other countries run things?" This search for knowledge had started all because of one particular gaming website: Sporcle.com. One day in some class that I can't remember, we were working on the computers in the library and I finished early. I was told I could do as I please, as long as it was appropriate. So, I returned to my computer and saw whoever was sitting next to me playing the "countries of the world quiz" on Sporcle. I asked him (her? I don't remember) what site it was he (she?) told me, and I went to Sporcle. I tried the quiz. I got 62 countries, flat. I thought this exact thought: "Wow! I sucked at this. I have to do better." So I trained. I played that quiz every day at home several times, memorizing the country names. Until eventually, I got all 195 done (South Sudan was not a country at the time). I was very happy with my accomplishment. I went on to memorize all the capitals and all the flags on Sporcle as well. I can still do all three quizzes flawlessly (I hope). It was around then that I thought again how these countries ran their countries. I was taken to the CIA world factbook, the website that Sporcle users to be considered the least biased, most credible source for world info around. So I went on it. And so it began. Any country that seemed remotely interesting to me, I would open up its page and read every section on said country. I did this for almost all of them, and it took me a damn long time to do so. But by the end, I had wide knowledge of how countries ran things, along with their histories. I began to look at politics with a global perspective, and did the same with my understanding of history. This wildly changed how I saw things. I grew increasingly apart from my American system, which I viewed as repressive and ignorant, along with being proponents of hatred and strife for decades (I was right, OBVIOUSLY).



Then, the final change. I blame this one on Yahoo answers. At the beginning of 2011 I created an account on the site (I can't remember why) and began answering whatever random questions came my way. I increasingly leaned towards answering politics section questions, along with religion and news. However, there was a distortion I noticed: at least 60% of all people answering these sections were conservative. At least 90% of these conservatives were completely hateful of anyone different than them, and also uninformed about most issues they sparked answers or questions on. Either way, it became clear that me and pretty much anyone more leftist than Reagan was not welcome on the site. I decided that I would not leave, that my voice would be heard. I would not be silenced. I noticed how easy it became to poke logical holes in all of their arguments. Truthfully, almost anyone can. Those guys rarely have any idea what they're talking about. The ones that do are either imaginary, or they are this one white nationalist guy who is an advocate of the American Nazi Party whom I hate with all my being. And that one guy isn't right much of the time, either (he said only 600 Jews died in the holocaust, and that all of them committed suicide. What a dick). Either way, my anger grew with each passing hateful question or answer I saw. How could these people think they are right? How could they ever believe that gay marriage would lead to polygamy and animal marriage? Were they just plain stupid? Or was someone manipulating their beliefs and knowledge? I received no true answers.



Then, summer came. The only difference this summer had for me was that I really had nothing to do. AZA had ended for the summer (a Jewish youth group), I was not going to be a CIT/LIT this summer (helps with camps for SSL hours necessary to graduate), and I had no job (not lacking an effort to find one, mind you). The answer was essentially this: I did what I wanted. I played videogames, I read books, and I did stuff with friends, pretty much whatever I could do to stay not bored. I did go on vacation to Rochester and New York City, but those distractions were short-lived, no matter how fun they were. Often times, Yahoo Answers was a fun little haven I went to nightly over the summer to indulge in my political thoughts. However, all this free time allowed me to get more into it, and the patterns of the right-winged morons on the site angered me further and further. It reached a breaking point one night when I had answered a particularly hateful and misinformed question by a conservative (I think it was an attack on Obama). After putting in my response, I scrolled through the others. Most were other hateful conservatives agreeing with the person. Some were by liberals who decried the question and answers with logic and passion. However, one particular answer by a liberal of the site took my attention. While it did answer the question in a way I enjoyed, it reinforced the flaws I consistently saw with capitalism at the same time. And thus my "reformation" was complete. If attacks on the left cannot be answered with democracy alone, then how am I to back democracy?



This question plagued me for weeks. I did much research on the question through the CIA World Factbook, trying to find how other countries responded to this question. I noticed something. Much of Europe and Asia, along with some of South America and Oceania, had stronger, more effective systems than the USA. At the same time, all were far more leftist than us, and some were even communist. I thought that, perhaps, communism is something more than just what US history made it out to be. I looked into its history and the leaders who contributed to communist theory. With this, I became communist. I backed several of the leaders and their ideas, noting that they were right far more often than proponents of democracy would be. I took ideas from Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Guevara, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, the Pathet Lao, and a little of Mao (I didn't like how many people he had to kill to achieve his ends, no matter how good). And so, my ideology was complete. I believed that, given a choice, any country should answer with communism over capitalism or democracy. Communism ensured that the proletariat would not be exploited for the benefit of the few, and ensured that the will of a country was the will of its people alone, rather than its businesses or wealth class. At the same time, I rejected absolute communism and its proponents, such as Stalin and Kim Jong-Il. I viewed both as particularly crappy leaders, not because they were communist, but because they were fools that put their own personal needs before that of the country far too often. It has gotten so bad in North Korea's system nowadays that even China is slowly cutting ties with them. Stalin is the sole reason (or so I believe) that the USSR was not able to persevere and survive until today. Both countries suffered from poor leadership early on, wrecking their systems. This is a problem that affects all systems. They are dependent on not having shitty leaders, but should any system get one it is rarely prepared to deal with that. However, I do believe that communism is better suited to do so because it is meant to respond to the will of the people. Should the people reject a leader, a communist government can do the same and replace said leader. This often is a fault of democracy, forcing bloody coups and army involvement to take place for a simple regime change. This complicates the process, sometimes leading to poor leadership or military rule, exemplified in Burma or Egypt today.



The last aspect of my ideology is that I believe that any country has the right to choose the system it desires, whether I believe communism is better or not. It is not my right to decide what people should follow or make their own. And while I fully support almost any leftist movement worldwide, that does not mean I believe that absolutely everyone should become communist. You can believe as you like and countries can choose their governance as they like. However, don't come crying to me when those systems and beliefs fail. The reason I follow this aspect is because I believe that all countries of the world have a "revolution clock." This clock is a constant factor of that countries governance and lifestyle. It has portions including government rule and general satisfaction, public unrest and government failure, revolution, and installation of new government. Most countries have clock styled like this, with some exceptions. Those that do all have these sections, however each countries' "clock" has sections that are different lengths. Also, the hands of each clock move at different speeds for each country. This is why all countries are different. This is what allows some countries to have very long or short lasting governments, along with long or short periods of change.



Why do I believe this, you ask? Because I believe revolution and change are a natural part of humans. Because humans are not perfect, any system of governance we create will not be perfect. These systems will be plagued by imperfect leaders. Eventually, all things are forced to boil over in order to ensure a system of order among the masses. If revolution never occurs, the persistent flaws in place will almost always get worse, making life for those of said country deteriorate. And while I believe communism is the best system, it is not perfect. This is due to the state-market balance that it must achieve. In order for any communist system to run well, it must find a balance between control of the economy and liberalization practices to ensure that constriction of the economy doesn't destroy it. This is why I don't favor absolute communism or North Korea. Both are far too restrictive of the economy, and in a globalized world they are ineffective. However, I do see that government regulation of the market must be strong to prevent abuses inside it (like Goldman & Sachs and Wall Street performed). This is why I like modern China. It has found the best state-market balance of most any communist system so far. "But why not find that balance within democracy?" I have been asked this by a few people. The reason is because democracy automatically leans to the right on this one, and doesn't allow any logic that goes any further right or left of what it is used to, especially in America. This is why I'm okay with democracy sometimes; done correctly (which many world governments do today), it does work out well enough to benefit the people. However, democracy still restricts ideals that it doesn't like. We must be willing to hear all ideas to have an effective system, and communism can allow this. I know it may seem hypocritical to say this while modern day communist countries only have one political party most of the time, but the fact of the matter is that they don't have to. I do not fully and absolutely back each and every decision of all communist countries. I back them when they make smart choices, which all but North Korea do often. Communism can allow for complete flow of ideals if it is run correctly, and this is my main reasoning for support of it, along with its capacity to protect the lower classes and prevent degradation/regression.



And so ends the shaping and explanation of my ideals. For those interested, beginning in 11th grade I joined a political/debate group at my school called the JSA (Junior Statesmen Association), a non-partisan group open to all ideals, in order to indulge my need to have political discourse in my life now that I have no time for Yahoo Answers any more (JSA website is JSA.org, for those interested). I stick to my beliefs, and keep up with news to ensure I am up to date. I refresh my memory of global history and politics often using the CIA World Factbook, and I always try to keep an open mind when people dispute my opinions on issues. If I'm not open to differing opinions, then how can I make a correct and just decision? Well, that is all for this post, and for those with questions comments, or whatever may post them in the comments section. If you'd prefer something else, I have a Facebook and a twitter feed, and my email is zerospintop@live.com. Until next week, farewell comrades! (little communist joke there. But seriously, bye).

Excess, Division, and the Sickness of Capitalism: Why America Is In An Economic Craphole

Once again, welcome all to my wondrous blog!



This week’s post centers on specifically the American economic crisis, including why it happened and how I think we might be able to solve it. And don't worry folks, next week’s post will center on why I believe in communism, so you just have to wait it out a little. I promise I will follow through.



But first, this is A Nerd's Life, so I'll start with that. Because Thanksgiving is coming up, my school tries to pile on tons of homework and tests right before the break so that it won't have to afterwards. Unfortunately, while I enjoy the policy, it means a lot of pre-holiday stress that screws with me and pretty much everyone else I know. For instance, I had twice the normal amount of AP biology homework this weekend than I normally receive. I have several tests in the next 2 and a half day week. It will not be fun. Also, the quote for this week was changed recently from the "only I don't die" quote to the one by Donald Glover because I watched his hour long special on comedy central and it was hilarious. I suggest you watch it as well. However, this blog and I are in no way associated with Donald Glover or Comedy Central. I really hope that avoids all copyright stuff.



Anyway, on to this week's topic: the American financial crisis. Unless you're dead or Amish (what's the difference? Amish slam!), you've noticed that the current economy of America is not good. As the title implies, we are in a craphole. But there is a lot of misinformation surrounding how we got here. Let me fill you in (get it? craphole? fill in? HA!).



Back during the Clinton presidency, even though the Republicans controlled the Congress (for the most part) by the end of it, he was able to create the first budget surplus our government had seen in 35 years since the 1960s. Then, our nation made a choice to elect what I view as a poor starting president for the 21st century: Bush, the son of the former one-term president George H. W. Bush. And while technically I believe that the supreme court elected him and not the people, we did choose to reelect him (foolishly) and give him two terms. Remember, he went in with a budget surplus. What promptly occurred within these two terms were the starts of two major wars, drone strikes, and other international attacks in support of democracy/against terrorism. He also began No Child Left Behind, and created the infamous Bush tax cuts for middle income Americans. A simple sweep of graphs on the White House website show governmental spending over his terms and president Obama. The total spent under Bush? 10 TRILLION DOLLARS. That is right. Total under Obama so far? Just over 4 trillion. So when people say Obama is outspending Bush, he isn't. 10 trillion divided by two terms is 5 trillion per term. Obama has not yet reached 5 trillion, and he is nearing the end of his term. He is going to be on-par with Bush spending. But spending alone is not what screwed us. Let's examine the Bush policies.



Number one: wars and paramilitary programs. Under Bush, spontaneous funding for strong military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan began. However, drone strikes and other operations were conducted in Liberia, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen beginning under Bush as well. Note that these things are not free. They cost absolute buttloads of money, and it had to come from somewhere. The problem was, that Bush did not correctly fund all this extra spending. He quickly ran out of surplus because he created the Bush tax cuts. To understand why this causes problems, let me explain. The government holds a lot of money. It allocates this money to different spending amounts for different things, ranging from Medicare to military. However, the government cannot simply order the mint to print this money for them to use; that would cause rampant inflation that quickly brings ruin. Instead, the government must tax citizens or impose tariffs in order to bring in sufficient government revenue. Because tariffs only apply to fluctuating trade, taxes are a much steadier, stronger source of government revenue. So, when Bush applied tax cuts to a large segment of the population, he took money that was previously going into the government and placed it in the people's pockets. The problem was that these wars needed money that not only Bush wasn't providing, but he was also going into debt to ensure. This created instant deficits that began building up over his two terms, and the biggest problem was a fault of the people. In order for Bush's plan to work, all citizens would have needed to spend the money they received in tax returns in order to circulate that money back into the economy. However, people are not stupid, so most placed a significant amount of their returns in savings accounts in banks. This means that money which was supposed to be in the economy was now sitting in bank vaults, slowly poisoning our system. And thus, big problems for our economy.



Next was the No Child policy, which placed strong emphasis and funding to schools that passed standardized tests. The problem with this standardized testing is that it is not a fully sufficient way to gauge the intelligence of the nation. Also, the true goal of all schools is to make money, not to educate. So, the schools switched all focus to making the students pass the tests rather than learn the subjects so that the schools would receive the funding they desired. This also means that schools with students that actually needed help wouldn't receive the funds they needed for this help because not enough of the students did well enough on standardized tests. This created a hierarchy among students between counties, where the smarter counties would receive all the funding for students that rarely needed it as much while the rest were left in the dust. Two things cause problems here. First, the policy required more federal funding that it simply wasn't getting due to tax cuts. Secondly, while it hasn't quite affected us yet, it does not effectively prepare students for the real world or college quite as well as other systems do, so when kids that went through the No Child policy graduate from college or high school, they are not ready for the work world, and unemployment shoots up. The policy also prevents a large amount of kids from graduating high school at all, lowering the educational expectancy of our nation and deeply cutting the job market with unskilled laborers. But this is not one of the largest problems that caused our decline.



The title of this post notes a "sickness of capitalism." While many of you may not have believed that this was actually a thing, it does exist, and here it is. Capitalism gives great autonomy to citizens and corporations and banks to make their own decisions in the economy. It sounds great, but the fact of the matter is that it forces the economy to be driven by greed. And the greediest of people are generally the ones who hold the most power in companies and already make the most money. This allowed huge banks and financial giants to bet on European debt and other poor decisions using money their customers had put into the vaults. When the banks lose those "bets," they lose the money that is rightfully for the people. And banks can't just say "Sorry, we don't have your money." This is why big bank bailouts occurred, and huge problems with financial crashes began. However, even worse is that some people served to gain by these crashes (Goldman and Sachs). And before that, companies had been taking money out of paychecks and pensions from the "lowly" workers to fund astronomical paychecks and pensions for their CEOs. So when everything crashed, the majority workers suffered even more while the higher-ups had a nice monetary cushion to protect them from harm. This is the sickness of capitalism; it allows the richest to make strong profits while the poor degrade into dust. This is one of my reasons for following communism, but that will be discussed next week.



My solution for the crisis is simple: begin raising taxes and regulations while cutting military spending and ending wars. I'm sure some of you might be thinking "Raising taxes? That's socialism!" WRONG. You couldn't be more wrong. Raising taxes for the express purpose of doling it out to the poor is socialism. Raising taxes to put more money into government budget revenues is still capitalist, and smart. Start by eliminating Bush tax cuts and raising taxes to all those making 250K a year or more, to 40 or 50 percent. But what if they just run away, right? Heh, that won't happen. Even at 50 percent income taxes, someone making that much money still has 125K to use, and that is PLENTY to live on. People live happily with a lot less, I assure you of that. The rich won't flee because they're suddenly not as super-rich as they used to be. As long as they can still buy yachts, they will remain here.



Next, regulations. They may seem restrictive on the free market, but the free market is not smart. It is a small child given infinite money in a toy store. It will not be smart with that money on its own. You must regulate how it spends and receives money so that poor choices and huge fluctuations are not made. By regulating banks and wall street, we protect ourselves for unethical monetary practices and we guarantee the majority receives the extra money they need to weather the financial crisis.



And finally, end all wars we are currently in (Iraq, Afghanistan) and end unnecessary drone strikes in places like Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Seriously, the terrorist threat is pretty much gone by now. We're done, and as long as we have tons of nukes we should be safe. Also, why do we still have military bases in Germany and Mongolia? Do we really need to be funding those? No, so pull funding for all these things and bring troops home. You want American jobs? You can get them for free by having the troops come home and receive them.



All of these measures together would decrease the budget deficit quickly and create a lower unemployment rate, ensuring a stronger growth to the economy. By the way, the economy grew in 2010. Yeah, turns out the surplus did work, and economic growth resumed. During 2009, the budget for that fiscal year had been written in October of 2008 by Bush. 2009 was the only year our economy shrank. Take that as you will. But, I do believe my measures would work.



Alright, that is all for this week, and if you'd like to be in contact with me about this issue you can leave a comment under this post, or message me through Facebook or twitter. I also have an email, zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, a.k.a Ben Goldberg, signing off, and have a happy Thanksgiving everyone!

An Assessment of World Freedom: Why We're Not All Bad

Once again, welcome to the blog!



I know that this post is not weekly on Sunday as promised, but I had tons of homework yesterday, and watchmen is a movie that you cannot stop watching, and I'm sorry for that. Let's get right to the point of this post: I will be making an assessment of overall world freedom in our modern era, including the status of human rights, the achievements of popularly elected governments, and an overall rating for how our world measures on human freedom. It should also be noted that once a month, I will take a break from any series of posts to comment on a larger debate in a longer post. For instance, at the end of this month, I will tell you all a comprehensive answer to why I am a communist. But more on that later.



Anyway, freedom is an especially difficult topic to debate and discuss. Why, you ask? Because, while most people believe that freedom is either absolute or not there at all, this could be no further from the truth. People do not require absolute freedom in all aspects to be truly "free." Like beauty, freedom is in the mind and heart of the beholder. I view freedom as all that is needed to be happy in life. While having absolute freedom may feel nice, it is not necessarily what is best for all people. At the same time, I do believe that humans deserve some degree of freedom; as such, countries where people have no freedom nearly always disgust me. And don't try to tell me that communism takes away all freedoms, because that is bogus. Fascism removes all freedoms, while communism does not. Just like capitalism, communism takes some freedoms but provides others as accommodation. The view of which freedoms are absolutely necessary in each system is what is different between the two. That is why you can't tell me that China is not free; China is definitely free. Many people think that communism automatically ensures that people have no economic or social freedom, and that all property belongs to the state. While this was mostly true under Stalin-ruled Russia, it was outdated quickly and has become an inefficient model of communism. That is why in modern China, there is private ownership. People enjoy a number of economic and social freedoms, and don't try telling me about the one-child law. I'd like to ask you: if you had a country with about one sixth of the world's population growing at an alarming rate, how would you stop it? Try to promote abstinence? Sell more condoms? Either way, there was no great solution to the problem, and we know both of those alternatives I stated would have failed. Me and my peers are taught about abstinence since fifth grade, but many high schoolers and college students still have sex. This is a fact of life, and no amount of preaching the horrors of child birth will stop that in the foreseeable future.



But I digress. Based on the amount of countries I see that I consider free, I would give the world a B in terms of grading our progression of freedom. An 8 out of 10. A little off the beaten path, but not enough to ruin the trip or get lost. My reasoning for this is because while there are some terrible places out there that foster horrible oppression of their citizens (Bolivia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, etc.), the amount of countries that do the opposite outweigh them. Almost all of North and South American countries can be considered free (to me, including Cuba and to a lesser extent Venezuela), and so can most European and Asian countries. And while some countries (Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan) may not be the best places to live, there are only so many of them. And while Africa may be experiencing trouble, the majority of countries there are free. Plus, most of them have had just 50 years or less to begin developing after centuries of not governing themselves. You have to give them time to learn how running a government effectively and fairly works, especially after the treatment they endured. If you still don't see things my way, consider the world on a time continuum. In the past, imperial powers ruled over and dominated other peoples of no right of their own. Terrible dictatorships and fascist powers sprung up between the 1920s and 1930s, ensuring the oppression and degradation of their people. Continual wars marred the earth for decades of the 20th century, and only in recent years have the total amount of wars going on started to subside. You may say "But what about Iraq and Afghanistan? The Kosovar war? And etc.?" The fact of the matter is, that war probably will exist for a very long time. As long as resources are limited, the desire for control of them will exist as well. It is this desire, along with other factors, which most commonly leads to war, and it will for most of the foreseeable future. In the past, wars were going on all over the place for all different reasons. Hate-filled governments and rebellions came and went, with deaths and casualties abounding. The last century brought the two most devastating wars of all time, along with multiple other ones that scarred us even further.



And things were no better back before the 20th century. Until the end of the Napoleonic Wars, European countries had always been at war since medieval times. Wars in sub-Saharan Africa were common, and civil wars of Asian empires came at the turn of each dynastic cycle. In the Americas, with the turn of each empire came violent struggles for power, just like in most of the rest of the world. The past also had the Crusades, which I view as the lowest point in human history. My point here is that through time, on a global scale we have improved, and although some hatred and totalitarianism may linger, we have done good bringing freedom and prosperity to the human race. If we stay on this path, I believe that the possibilities for the future are endless and promising. However, I also do see a consistent threat to our progress. It becomes aware to me at least once per day. There are those that vie for a return to the ways of the past, who stress tradition, and a change to the way things were. No matter how good it may seem to return to the "good old' days," the fact of the matter is that tradition really has no place in governance, and that ideologies must be willing to accept new ideas if they ever want to keep up with the current tide of the world. This is why I dispute conservatism. The more we long for the past, the more we forget that that time is no longer here. The ideas of tradition become outdated and useless as more time passes, and this was proven while Bush was president. The trickledown theory had already failed under Reagan, but Bush tried to revive it. The fact of the matter is this: once a theory fails in the past that means it will fail worse if tried again in the future. It did exactly that, and we feel the failure of those policies even today. As such, if we wish to stay on a positive path in which freedom of the world's people can be brought about, we must be willing to move alongside it in the same progression. We must not yearn for the past, for if we return to the old ways we will most likely be left behind to rot.



Wow, that was some tangent. However, I feel my argument has come to its conclusion. We are on the right road, and all we have to do now is follow it. If we do, then freedom for all is not too far off. That doesn't sound too hard for the payoff, now does it? We're not all bad, so let's keep it that way, and strive to make it even better. If you have questions or comments, once again you can leave them in the comments for this section. If you would rather email me, once again my email is zerospintop@live.com. I also have a Facebook and, more recently, a twitter, so you can go to those as well if you wish. This is SuperJew McLovin, a.k.a Ben Goldberg, signing off.

Today's Topic: Religion!

Once again, greetings!



For all those reading this post or having read my first one, I'd like to note that my posts will most likely be weekly, every Sunday, from now on. Anyway, before I go into religion, the name of this blog is A Nerd's Life, so I'll go into that first.



I'd like to write this: Dear online databases, please go fuck yourselves. Signed, I will NOT take a free subscription, thank you very much. The reason I say this is because in my school over this weekend and for the first half of this week, my AP world history class is required to do a project where we create a newsletter based on the impact the Mongols had on an assigned region in the 13th and 14th centuries. Me and my bud were assigned to do the Middle East (Persia), the domain of the Il-Khans. We're supposed to use to online databases for Noodletools resources, but unfortunately in order to access them at home we have to sign up for a supposedly "free" subscription to the database that lasts at least 2 months. And each of the databases does this. Normally, I'd be fine with this, but these things ask for credit card info and social security numbers. Free subscription my ass. As such, I am forced to only gather my website resource info at home, and do ALL of the other note cards in class tomorrow and Tuesday, limiting the amount of time I can do the project. My bud also ran into the problem. This will surely suck.



Anyway, that's the weekly dosage of being a nerd for me here. On this week's topic, I'd like to discuss religion, or rather America's problems with it. If you're not like Helen Keller, then you know that evangelical Christians (and just Christians in general) are the base of the Republican party and conservative ideology. In fact, pretty much all conservatives are some sect of Christianity, from Catholics to Mormons (Mitt Romney). And unless you are very blinded ideologically, then you also know that Christian conservatives often attack just about any other religion than their own, especially when a liberal practices said faith. That is why if you go on Yahoo answers, all the conservatives on there will say Obama is a Muslim. Let's get some things straight here. First, Obama practices Christianity. He's done readings of the freaking Bible. Next, the fact that conservatives would attack him if he was a Muslim is astonishing. In America, the Constitution that conservatives claim to love denotes freedom of religion in the first amendment, which small-government advocates of the day strongly supported. It also says that religion will not play a role in government, and that a presidential candidate will not be denied the presidency due to the basis of his/her faith. As such, calling Obama a Muslim isn't just hateful towards Muslims, it attacks him for reasons that the Constitution itself contradicts. Conservatives treat Islam as though it is a hate-filled religion and that if any Muslim gets political power they think he will implement Sharia law. Islam is no more hateful of others than Christianity, and let's not forget that Christianity was a borderline genocidal religion back in the Dark Ages. This lasted several centuries. Terrorism? Not even 100 years old yet.



Next, Sharia law is not even a defined system. It depends on whether its implementation is made by Sunni or Shiite leaders, and even then it is still not a complete system as of yet. That is why Iran and Morocco can both practice it, but only one is a country that presents a world threat and treats its citizens poorly (Iran, of course). Even so, Sharia law is not necessarily a terrible, repressive system. It applies religious characteristics to government, yes, but it is in the hands of a nation's people to decide what form of governance they desire. It is not up to us to decide that. Even if Obama was a Muslim who preached Sharia law and had somehow made it our system, I would not truly mind too much. It dedicates help to the poor, and establishes Jews as a protected minority. Christians aren't in immediate danger either. Even under harsh Sharia law like that of Saudi Arabia and Iran, Christians still survive. They can't openly practice their religion, but very few people these days take the time to be full-time practitioners of their religion anyways. And you can always pray in your house, if necessary. Also, the merciless attacks I see on Muslims in general by conservatives disgust me.



While I cannot find the main base of their hatred, I do believe that it is hated for two main reasons. One: just like conservatives fear communism because it is different from us, they also fear Islam. Because almost all conservatives are Christians and Islam has a poor history with them, they still attack it as their religious rival in the world. Two: many of them probably just plain hate Muslims. Because it is a different religion that is smaller than Christianity, they deny it and attack it in the hopes of eradication of an opponent. Just like they do to leftists. Either way, hatred of a religion (especially the world's second biggest one) gets conservatives nowhere fast and also establishes them as the ideology of intolerance. That is why the majority of American Muslims attach themselves to the liberal ideology. My view of Islam? It's not a bad religion. It's no worse than Christianity like I said before. I've read the Qur'an, and as far as I can tell it is a religion that should be fully accepted. In our American system (and pretty much any system), you need to allow for a complete flow of ideas from all sources. I'm not sure if James Madison or Thomas Jefferson said this in the federalist papers, but you need to have an absolute exchange of ideals (at least in a democracy) to keep the system flowing at full capacity. If the system shuts out ideals, foreign or domestic, it is forced to abandon hope of adopting any good sides to said ideals. While isolation does sound tempting at first, it is no longer feasible at this point in history. The world economy is now fully globalized and interdependent, and we all know well that isolation of the economy constricts its abilities (the Cuba embargo). As such, when conservatives attack the ideas of leftists and Muslims, they effectively are preaching the isolation of the American system from political debate. This would cause the American government to become defunct, leading to a whole host of other problems. You need to some level of political debate in a country to keep it functioning properly, and whether this is within a political party or not, it must happen.



This is why systems like that of Iran and Syria don't work well. They do not allow opposition in their governments, so the opposition instead manifests itself in protesters time and again. If these governments would be willing to appease the protesters and accept new ideas, they could reform, move forward, and have a chance to progress with the world. Because both countries use militaristic force against their protesters, they shut out opposition ideas, constraining their government and forcing the country to sit back and regress while the rest of the world doesn't. This is what I see conservatives trying to do often in our system. They preach "tradition" and "good old Christian morals."



Trying to get back the "good old days" just continually forces the American system to regress, and this regression will only lead to systemic failures due to the fact that much tradition is now outdated and useless. Second, when conservatives say "Christian" morals, they say that they don't mean the religious ones, they mean the original morals of our society. Bullshit. They mean that they want America's morals to be based off the Bible, and they know it. Doing this effectively makes them no better than the Sharia law defenders they attack so much. We must allow all religions to have an equal say and strength in our government, or succumb to failure due to isolation and hatred.



That is all for this week, and if you'd like to try debating me do so in the comments. If you'd like to do it a little more privately, my email is zerospintop@live.com. Please no hateful things; they will be deleted if deemed so. This is SuperJew McLovin, a.k.a Ben Goldberg, signing off.

And So It Begins...

Greetings to all who may read this!



Hello, my name is Benjamin S. Goldberg, and this is the introductory post to my blog. It will be long, but absolutely worth it. Also, I believe that paragraph breaks be stupid, so I won't use them. Just giving fair warning. So, let's see here. I am a complex, multifaceted person, so this is going to be difficult.



To start, as obvious by my URL and name, I am Jewish. However, this religion is by birth only, as I actually do not believe in God. I do believe and follow the merits of several religions, however, including Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism, with a small piece of Hinduism. The reason I don't believe in God is because I see no reason or proof of a God's existence. Nor do I see a need for one, anyway. I believe that humans came from evolution. The Garden of Eden is crap, because if Adam and Eve were the only two people, then how did they start humanity? Even if they had constant sex and produced infinitely many children, those children would either have to reproduce with each other or their parents since there are no other people, and that much incest would have killed off humanity early on. Anyway, if God does exist, he is terrible at his job. Death, famine, war, and hate persist quite easily in this world, and if any God were trying to save humanity from itself that God would be smart enough to remove free will from the equation. As long as freedom of thought exists, so too shall hate, and all our problems shall be real. It is for this same reason I believe we don't need a God today. Humans as an entire species, race, or however we view ourselves are a marvel of biology, chemistry, philosophy, and multiple other aspects. Our accomplishments throughout our relatively short time on this planet are enormous, from the development of civilization to the advent of government. We can do so much when we pull together, and we need no God to do this. We can muster miracles all on our own, if we just get up off our lazy asses and make it happen for ourselves instead of waiting for some deity to do it for us.



That is another aspect of my personality. I feel that if you want to see some change in your life or the life of others, mild or huge, you must make it happen. It doesn't matter if you do it alone or with the help of millions. You are the master of your life, and you are responsible for where you wish to see it go. Don't just complain about how your fridge is empty; go out and buy some groceries. Don't complain about government corruption; go out and organize a protest about it. If you want change, make it happen. You will be impressed with that which you can do.



Moving on, I am a 16 year old male in my junior year of high school, and this presents multiple stresses. First and foremost, I go to one of the best public schools in the country, and it is heavily populated with races that are considered "smart" by colleges. This means that it is primarily Asian, with significant amounts of Jews as well. And let's face facts: Jews and Asians just generally end up being smarter than other races for some reason. While I believe it has to do with parenting style, it still remains a mystery to me. Primarily because one of my best friends is a Christian white kid whose parents do not press him too hard academically, and he is still able to compete with me for grades every time. And this is a big thing, considering that I place above 95 percent of my school in GPA points. And I currently take 3 AP classes as well as honors classes, presenting a lot of work. For those that don't know, an AP is an advanced place class, taught and administered in the same way college courses are today, however with high school-style homework loads. Honors classes are a step up from regular classes, but the workload and difficulty vary widely. Anyway, because I place higher than most kids, this presents enormous pressure on me to do well on all tests as compared to my peers, especially those that compete with me for grades. It's not like I don't love it; I have very little to pride myself on, so smarts are my main thing. Sometimes though, it gets difficult, especially when I don't do particularly well or as good as I hoped. It has gotten worse since junior year started. Also, because I am so smart I get constant waves of both friends and random kids from my classes asking for help on questions or topics in these classes. I do enjoy helping others succeed, especially since America's education system needs all the help it can get, but it becomes a burden on my time and mind. Much of the problem is because I do well both in sciences and English, so my possibilities for helping other vary. I do plan on majoring in biochemistry and literature in college as a double major, if anyone is wondering why I'm good at both. The reason I plan to do this is because all of my life, I have enjoyed both.



I'll start with literature. Ever since I was young, I loved to read, especially fiction. I loved taking time out of my day to be transported to a world entirely my own, where fantastical stories of adventure, love, death, and fate intertwined into one. I veered off from poetry early, and decided to become immersed in prose. Don't get me wrong, I love poetry. I just can't write the stuff. I started to read books for anywhere from three to five hours each and every day starting in kindergarten, and went from there. About freshman year of high school, I drew an interest in Shakespeare, and proceeded to read almost all of his works, yes, including the sonnets. Don't ask me my favorite play by the Bard, as I could never be torn to make such a decision. I love As You Like It, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Taming of the Shrew, and of course Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare was a master of that which enticed human emotion, and I shall forever praise him on his indelible contributions to our history of literature. This ties into my school problems, because whenever my class reads Shakespeare or any literature that is spoken in old English, my peers always have trouble understanding it where I never fault, so they come to me for it a bit too often. Just learn it, people. Anyway, after I finished working through Shakespeare I decided to explore more classic literature. I read the Divine Comedy, the Odyssey, the Iliad, the Aeneid, the Three Musketeers, and my crowning achievement, the Count of Monte Cristo, a.k.a the book with 1,452 pages. I loved them all and continue reading both classic and modern books to this very day. I have read more literature in my life than the average person reads by the time they are forty, so should you list any book, chances are I have read it. Even if it isn't in English, the chances are high. Just try me.



As for why I want to major in biochemistry, this is more complex. Starting off early I wanted to know more about science in general. I loved biology, chemistry, and physics immediately, and I remember being 9 and declaring that I would be a doctor when I grew up. I didn't want to be a pediatrician, because I didn't want to have to deal with whiny kids. Everything changed when I started watching Mythbusters and the Big Bang Theory later on. I was sucked into the world of physics, specifically astrophysics. I had a desire to know what was going on in black holes, what dark matter was, and if colonization of other planets would ever be possible. I delved into the work of Stephen Hawking among other leading physicists at age 11, and was hooked. I sided with Hawking on his ideas about black holes, despite any evidence the other side may have used to the contrary. Based on what I knew, I believed Hawking to probably be correct. I sided with string-theorists as well, and I still believe M-theory to be our best possible current answer to the "Theory of Everything" problem that the field of physics has been grappling with for decades. I decided in freshman year that I would double major in college, literature and astrophysics, with most of my focus on astrophysics. I held this until this very year, when I started honors physics. As it turns out, I suck at physics, and due to the D I had in the class first quarter I was forced to drop down to regular physics for the remainder of the school year. This caused a slight depression in me, due to the fact that I was doing considerably worse than I had ever done in school, my parents and brother were gloating about how they were right and I shouldn't have taken honors physics, and lastly my educational crisis. Faced with the fact that I couldn't and never will be able to handle any advanced physics, I was forced just a few weeks ago to decide where I wanted my life to go now that it was obvious that I wouldn't major in astrophysics. My first thought was to drop science entirely and to focus on English, major in literature in college. Maybe become an author later in life. I figured this might work. However, I instantly was encountered with the fact that becoming a well-paid author is extremely difficult, and that even if I was published, I doubted that my earnings from any amount of books I would publish would sustain me for the entirety of my life. And a literature major presents few other career opportunities in this world, at least. After long thought and meditation (yes I meditate), I decided that I would major in another science that I am good at. The problem I ran into then was to pick biology or chemistry. I loved both honors classes, and am currently taking AP biology. I will take AP chemistry senior year. I have gotten straight A's in the classes so far, but it was hard to pick. Both fields presented tons of career opportunities, and I would be able to go to graduate school on both. Yes, I plan to go to graduate school and get a PhD so I can brag that I am a doctor. But also because I love learning. Through intensive inner deliberation, I remembered something from not too long ago. For those that have watched the movie called the Motorcycle Diaries, you will remember Alberto Granado, the companion of Ernesto "Che" Guevara. For those that didn't, the movie details the early life of "Che" Guevara, as he makes a life-changing journey across South America with a lifelong friend of his, named Alberto Granado. In the movie, it becomes known that Che is a doctor (although I can't remember what field) who specializes in leprosy, and that Alberto is a biochemist. This intrigued me. If I could combine biology and chemistry, my search for a life decision would be complete. I settled on it, and am currently looking into what my life as a biochemist will hold, such as what college and grad school I will go to, where I should live to present myself with the best opportunities, what specifically I should research, and et cetera.



Moving on to a few last topics, I find the lack of intelligence around me astonishing and depressing. In this part, I only address my fellow Americans; the rest of the world is doing fine in this aspect. We increasingly know almost nothing about other countries. In fact, many of us are xenophobic, meaning we have a fear which translates to a hate of foreigners. This is a catastrophe. We are all one people, and if we ever wish to cohabitate this rock in peace we must be able to understand each other in order to work out our differences and ensure a world where violence and hate are not the answer to our troubles. I have become immeasurably aware of the fact that most people I know or meet can barely name more than 20 countries, and that they barely know any history about any country other than the USA. I'm even more shocked when I discover that many don't even know our history, which is drilled into our brains from 6th grade until 10th. This comes to a head for me when people like Sarah Palin declare that Paul Revere performed his famous ride not to warn the Americans, but to warn the British of our presence. Not only is this completely wrong, but she then defended her dumbass statements. This is awful. We are at the point where we can completely tarnish our own history, and barely get rebuffed for it. If we ever wish to make improvement in the present and the future, we must know the successes and mistakes of our past first. That way, we do not make them again. For anyone reading this, I urge you to take a stand and prevent this ignorance of the world and its history to prevail in our day and age. Everyone and their family has roots somewhere, so ask around and find out where you come from. Take it upon yourself to read up about the history of your homeland, its leaders and its current state in the world. If you can't find the information, I can help with that. There is extensive data on every recognized country in the world on a website known as the CIA world factbook. Go there, and you can find everything you would ever need to know about the world. The best part is that the only piece of true bias on the website is on the section about the USA. Other than that, any bias shown is reflected only in the relative amount of data the site contains about other countries based on which we consider "important." Search up your country, and learn, my friends. If you want to, do what I did and take initiative. I now know at least some of the history of every recognized world country, and I have extensive knowledge of those that have impacted the world the most throughout human history. I have memorized the names of every country, every capital, and every flag as well. I will be extremely proud should anyone else do what I have done. If we know about each other, then maybe things will be a bit easier for everyone. Just maybe.



Alright, we're doing good here, just two more topics and then it's over. If you're still reading, then you are super cool and I am proud of your effort. Now let's see you finish. The next topic I choose is relationships and love. While not inexperienced in the world of dating (as the title of this blog would suggest), I have only had one steady girlfriend so far in my life. We started dating on November 20th last year, and our relationship sustained until September 3rd of this year. It was hands down the best ten months ever. The best part, no, it's not the sex. In fact, I am still a virgin, and the farthest I got with my girlfriend was second base a few times. The best part is having someone you can share your life with. All the happiness and all the burdens, become much easier to bear when they rest upon your shoulders and your partners, rather than you alone. To have someone with which to share the deepest desires and thoughts that bubble through your mind is an amazing experience, and it allows for all sorts of good side effects. You will find that having a steady relationship really can cure stress quite effectively. And while some people say that "bitches/douches be crazy," I don't believe that. Most girls/guys are not crazy, and if you play your cards right you can end up with just the right one for you. All you have to do is look. And take this from me: take action on a girl (or guy) you're crushing on. No matter how ugly, fat, or just plain mean you may be, there is always a way. Also, pay attention to any girl or guy you think may be interested in you. Their hints may be subtle, but if you stay vigilant they become obvious. I really wish I had known this a while ago, because as it turns out I have had at least 9 different girls wanting to be with me since freshman year. I just couldn't see it at the time. So don't make my mistake, and go for that which you desire. This isn't a Slumdog Millionaire world; your destiny is not written (or so I believe). If you want to, you can grab a chisel and write out a new destiny for yourself. Never turn down your chances. Probability is hard for many to grasp, so I'll spell it out. The chances of you winning a date are probably thousands of times better than you winning it big at a casino, and millions better than winning the lottery. Primarily because there are billions of girls/guys in the world. If you can't find one, you're being too damn picky. Lastly on this, don't underestimate the pain of a breakup. No matter how many times you see them dramatized on TV or even in your life, you will generally think to yourself, "Wow! He/she is such a whiny pussy. He/she needs to buck up and get used to it. After all, how bad can it be?" I am telling you, if the relationship is real, the breakup will SUCK ASS. It is terrible, and if the relationship was anything like mine you will become very depressed. To have to go from a life with a companion to a life alone that suddenly is a major shock, and the longer/better the relationship the more powerful that shock will be. And I'm not talking about broken condom shock. I'm talking Haitian earthquake shock (my condolences and apologies to any Haitians reading this. I love Sweet Micky. Oh, and my condolences go to Dominicans as well. You didn't know they suffered too? Well I did). You will suffer a pain like no other. It will plague your consciousness, both awake and asleep. And the only cure, is time. You must let the pain fade away and allow your heart to mend before your life will return to normal. Your friends will try to cheer you up. I know that you won't want them around (probably), but just remember that they do it because they honestly care about you and don't want to see you hurting. For those wondering, I broke with my girlfriend because she told me she loved me, and I just wasn't ready for it. I questioned myself, asking if I even knew what love is. After all, she WAS my first girlfriend. The answer to the crisis was that I didn't know if I loved her back. I told her that we should date other people, that way we can know whether we are meant for each other are not. I was her first boyfriend, too (she was a nerdy girl, so we fit well). And so it ended there. I have begun dating again, although nothing has quite cropped up. Now that my ex-girlfriend has taught me how to pick up on hints from girls who are interested, I find that I seem to attract girls that are rarely my type, or will be almost perfect except for one, huge, glaring flaw. Or something like that.



Alright, last topic, I promise. It's politics, and it ties into my problem with how so many of us are stupid or ignorant. Also, I can only go so in depth here, as most of my later blog posts will be on politics anyway. Let's start with my ideology. I am a communist. That's right, you heard me; I'm a commie. I know that many of you may be shocked or even angered. You probably know that communism is bad, and that democracy is the way to go. Therefore, I support a bad system and I am bad, right? I'd like you to ask yourself something: why is communism so bad? Have you ever truly examined why you believe capitalism and democracy are the only acceptable systems? It can be difficult to consider anything but capitalism and democracy when you have lived your entire life in it. It can even be difficult if you have been to a communist country, or a country with another system (socialism does not count as another system, and there is only one country that is truly socialist today: Venezuela). Just because you have been there, does not make you an expert on it. Just because you grew up there does not necessarily make you an expert, either. You must study a system thoroughly before you can pass final judgment. Many people today (primarily adults) believe that communism is bad because they were alive in the cold war and many were in school during it. At that time period, we foolishly made countless military interventions all over the world in attacks against communism, the system we then believed to be the greatest threat to us. While it was an unrealistic threat, we didn't think so, so we taught our children that communism was bad so that we wouldn't have a communist youth rising up against our government. As a result, a fear and hatred of communism and pretty much any system that isn't like our system was implanted in the minds of our populace for decades. When the Soviet Union fell, these "lessons" did not go away, so there is still a hatred and fear of communism that persists in America today. This is why you hear the right consistently spread its message by yelling that if we do anything leftist, it is socialism, and therefore inherently evil and un-American. First off, socialism and communism are very different, and socialism is a barely implemented system. Only Venezuela uses it, and no other country has used it before. We don't know whether it will be successful or not, and we won't know until we evaluate Venezuela's successes and failures years from now. Despite popular opinion on the right, Europe is not socialist. They are capitalist democracies, and they're pretty good at it. Some have monarchies, some don't. One even is a duchy (Luxembourg). Just because a country has a king, doesn't make it socialist. Saudi Arabia has a king, and they are definitely not socialist. Also, just because European countries practice politics slightly to the left of our own, doesn't make them socialist. It means that their political spectrum is different than ours. In some strong cases like Greece, our liberals are their moderates. This doesn't mean things are wildly different. It simply makes it so that being more politically left is average among them. I have even heard conservatives claim that Russia is socialist, even though it is a federation, which is even more right-winged than us. The problem with saying Europe is socialist is that the majority of European countries have free speech. They don't have premiers. The government does not have that much more power than our government has. They do not constrict their economic policies the way that socialism would want them to. They have elections, and they don't get rigged. Most importantly, we have never intervened in Europe against communism even during the cold war. The most we ever did in Europe in the name of democracy was the Marshall Plan, which used money to keep Greece and Turkey from becoming communist. We were successful. That is why any time you here a right-winged person say that Greece's problems are the fault of socialism, you can know that they are wrong. Because we raised tons of money to prevent that very thing from happening, and we succeeded. Remind them of that. Personally, I don't like socialism, and I do not think that communism would have been a good thing for Greece at the time (I'm not entirely sure about Turkey, either). Greece is the birthplace of democracy and has a strong tradition of absolute political freedom. You can see it in their motto: Liberty or Death. That's even stronger than ours. As such, I believe that any communist system that would have cropped up in Greece would have failed due to a lack of popular support, leading to uprisings which would have complicated Greek history unnecessarily. I also don't like socialism; it's not even a defined theory yet, so it's hard to make a true opinion on it anyway. I do like communism, however, because I believe that in order to benefit the needs of the many, a government must be given sufficient power to do so, and that our government simply allows for a plutocracy where the rich benefit off the backs of the proletariat, who despite their numbers still hold relatively little power in their own government. As such, communism is a solution. I won't go further right now, because my full opinion will be expressed in later blog posts.



And I am done. Congratulations to all who finish this, and I hope you will read my blog often, and tell your friends about it too. This is SuperJew McLovin, a.k.a Ben Goldberg, signing off.