Soul Pain: Religion In Politics

Greetings to all!


This post comes at the end of the early spring holidays of both Easter and Passover, which I hope my Jewish and Christian readers enjoyed. Today, I argue why religion and politics should not mix in any way shape or form, and the problems associated with a government that has religious ties. This week's quote comes from Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Vietnamese communist movement which would make the nation what it is today. I admire him strongly for his ability to push Vietnam into fighting for its freedom.


As said before, religion and politics are not meant to go hand in hand. It's well known how harsh things can get under theocracy, as evidenced by Iran. However, that is an extreme case that goes beyond any bar us as Americans are used to. We are fairly adapted to a system of governance which imposes no specific religion, but allows a myriad of freedoms for most religions. Unfortunately, most of America is Christian and therefore that religion typically has the most hold in society and is given prime treatment at the expense of other religions. Only in recent years have stores required employees to say happy holidays instead of merry Christmas in December. This was an excellent step forward in preventing a subtle yet annoying form of discrimination. However, this also created a firestorm on the right which decried the move as a "war on Christmas", a term which apparently garners an entire website dedicated to preserving a holiday under "attack" as shown here: http://www.waronchristmas.com/. This is ridiculous. I'm sure I don't need to explain that while people now wish happy holidays, there is still quite a bit of pro-Christmas propaganda out there. Stores hold Christmas sales. Malls have days where you can take your picture with Santa. Pretty much every show on television features a Christmas special, and very few shows feature anything about Hanukkah. I only know of one show that ever had a Kwanzaa special: the Rugrats. Therefore, essentially every show on television outside of the Rugrats is discriminatory in some way. But I digress.


Anyway, religion is often a strong factor in American politics and in the politics of multiple countries around the globe. But no matter what religion asserts dominance, it nearly always harms the citizenry. For example, in Saudi Arabia only Sunni Muslims are allowed to have widespread mosques and be fully open about their religion. Sh'ia Muslims are restricted severely, and other religions have even less freedom in the large Arabic kingdom. Non-Muslims may not visit the Kaaba, and women must wear a burka. Women can't drive, and only recently have they been given some freedom in voting in elections for the Saudi governing body, the Majlis al-Shura. Obviously, these restrictions impede on the Saudi minorities for benefit of the majority, a fear which many people share including myself. You only need to look as far as medieval Europe to see how terrible majority Christian repression was. Yet we still encounter similar problems today.


A few weeks ago, there was significant controversy due to the requirement under Obamacare which forced leaders of religious institutions to provide birth control for female employees in their health care packages. Once again, the religious right was outraged. It seemed like a blatant attack on religious freedom. It is not. The belief in the "attack" stems from the falsehood that birth control is only used to prevent pregnancy after sex. However, birth control has significant benefits beyond preventing pregnancy (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control-pill/WO00098). This blows a large hole in the religious freedom argument, along with the fact that many health care packages from religious employers included Viagra (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216), a product designed to fix a condition which only impedes sex. With all of this came the idea that religious freedom comes before employee health. This idea is harsh and unreasonable. Why should the religion of an employer play a role in how the employees are treated? It damages a business, and can become very dangerous. Say I'm an employer, and I hire you. If my religion dictated that you can't receive any medicine for any disease and you got tetanus, you wouldn't be covered for an easily treatable disease. You could end up spending wildly more money to save your own life while the treatment could have easily been covered by a health care package from me. But apparently, that doesn't matter as long as I have my religious freedom.


Yet this is one of the more moderate examples. Back during the 1950s and 1960s, many southern churches didn't allow interracial marriages because it went against their religious beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws). During the civil rights movement, many conservatives of the day complained that race mixing was communism (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/10/race-mixing-is-communism/), a belief so wildly interspersed with hate and lies that I can't even fathom what logic there was behind it. Nevertheless, these arguments were serious road bumps in the civil rights movement, showing just how powerful religion is in America despite the discrimination it provokes. This hatred inspired by "God" shows its ugly head even today, evidenced by the Westboro Baptist Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church), infamous for its "God hates fags" picket signs and tough stance against both homosexuals and Jews. This hatred harms society in an unimaginable way, and the fact that government allows this horror to go on unabated just proves that religion is strong no matter how terrible it becomes. And I need only look as far as my own world history class to know that many people view Christianity as the number one religion. You can also check out multiple websites which claim that America is a Christian nation, like in several comments here (http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/is-the-us-a-christian-nation). It is not, and the founders of the United States would attest to that fact, I assure you. The point of all of this is that we cannot allow any religion to impose restrictions on civil rights of any kind. I need not remind you that for a time the New York Police Department spied on Muslim students because they were "suspicious" (http://www.npr.org/2012/03/01/147729662/nypd-spies-on-muslims-stirs-national-outcry). We can't let these impositions stand if we wish to remain a free and secular nation.


That is all for this week, and I hope I have provided an accurate analysis to the topic at hand. If you have questions or comments of any kind, I advise you leave them here so I may answer them. If you would prefer another medium, my Facebook and Twitter are active along with my Google+ account and email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off. 

Roundhouse Kick Part 2: You Can't Taste The Rainbow

Greetings to all!


This post comes as the second part of my update to the structure here at the end of each month. The last post here was one concerning a foreign issue, and I strongly suggest reading that before you read this post if you have not already done so. Today, I address a topic that has set off a firestorm in America and has clearly divided the populace among lines that most of us would like to ignore. I am taking a look at the Trayvon Martin case, along with the broader subject of gun control.


The facts of the case are as follows: Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old black male living in Sanford, Florida, on the way back to his father's house just a while ago. He had gone to a local convenience store wearing a hoodie, and had purchased a bag of Skittles and an iced tea. On the way back home, Martin was tracked by county watch official George Zimmerman, a half-white half-hispanic 28-year-old man. Zimmerman called the police as he was following Martin, telling them that Martin looked "suspicious" like he "was on drugs or something". The police asked for a location, and then told Zimmerman to stop following Martin after learning that he was doing so (http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/). After the call ended, Zimmerman continued following Martin and came into a conflict with him. Shortly into this, Zimmerman pulled out a loaded gun and killed Martin. No arrest was made, and no trial or charges have been brought up as of yet. And wow, it's easy to tear this apart.


So much is wrong in this case, it's hard to know where to start. I'll split this first into the racial profiling part, and then the larger area of gun laws. The proof of racial profiling is difficult, but easy to see if you know where to look. Zimmerman has had an obsession with crime and blacks for some time (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy). So we know that it is likely his view of Martin as suspicious may have been warped. Trayvon had been on the phone with his girlfriend, and had noted that he was being followed. Witnesses attested that the voice yelling in the struggle was young (http://insidedateline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/25/10843593-witnesses-describe-trayvon-martins-final-moments-parents-say-he-was-headed-on-the-right-path). And all in all, due to Florida's gun laws Zimmerman's claim of self-defense is all that is needed to prevent his arrest. This is in spite of witness Mary Cutcher, who was essentially blown off by the police department which took few notes on her account of the incident (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witness-sanford-police-blew-us-teen-slaying/nLSqk/). Examining all of this, how is it possible that Zimmerman truly needed the self-defense of a gun? Martin was younger and 140 pounds (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x121055164/George-Zimmerman-and-Trayvon-Martin), whereas Zimmerman was older and 250 pounds. Zimmerman had a gun and a car for protection, while Martin had a snack in his pockets. Not only that, but Zimmerman also has a police record for resisting arrest (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/23/2712299_p2/george-zimmerman-self-appointed.html). Pretty much every piece of evidence points to Zimmerman attacking and killing someone innocent because he was a racist.


And now, onto the bigger debate. Should laws concerning guns be as loose as Florida's "Stand Your Ground" legislation? The immediate and correct answer is no. Yes, I know the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for all citizens. But there are reasonable restrictions. Children and the elderly should not be able to own or be near guns, as it is highly dangerous to their health and others. People should not be able to have any kind of automatic weapon, tank, anti-tank weapon, or nuke. We all know these things, and all sane people agree at least on these terms. However, the argument settles typically around semi-automatic weaponry and the ease with which deadly firearms are attained. We need look only to Columbine High School to know that semi-automatic weaponry should not be available to anyone, let alone teenagers. When kids can attack a school, killing several people and injuring others using this type of gun, it should be well accepted that those weapons are not suitable for normal humans to own. Nobody is hunting with semi-automatic guns. Why? Because a moose isn't qualified as a military-grade target or threat. Neither are deer, birds, or anything else you hunt. Next comes the trouble with getting guns. Many states have a waiting period to get firearms, in which background checks and psychological analyses are performed to ensure weapons aren't being sold to dangerous human beings. But in states with looser gun laws, background checks and psych tests are few, while waiting periods are typically shorter or non-existent, and in some cases may be waived. This allows former criminals and other unstable individuals to get their hands on weapons that can easily kill fellow citizens. Sure, the defense of people and communities is important and we should be ready to "stand our ground" against criminals. But guns are really unnecessary. There is a reason we have police, and a reason why people arm their homes with alarms systems. Because we can deter and prevent crime without killing people all over the place. There is a reason that we have an incredibly high homicide rate per year, and it's not because we have a more mixed ethnic make-up. It's because we have laws that let it happen.


And so ends my end of the month two-part post on domestic and foreign issues. If you would like to ask questions, pose comments, etc., you can do so right here. My Facebook and Twitter are active, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com and my Google+ account. In the spirit of the recent holiday, I suggest you all view this link due to its importance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ. Happy holidays to all, and this is SuperJew McLovin signing off. 

Roundhouse Kick Part 1: al-Assadism and The Syrian Civil War

 Greetings to all!

This week's post comes at the close of March, with spring upon us here in the northern hemisphere. It is in this spirit that I will be taking a new format to my end of month posts. Instead of tackling one large issue each month, from now on both a domestic and a foreign issue will be taken on in two posts. This is the first part of the new style, concerning a foreign issue of grave importance: the Syrian Civil War that currently rages on. I post on this issue tonight, and hopefully tomorrow I will take stabs at a topic closer to home. This week's quote comes from the man I draw most of my ideology from, Leon Trotsky, on the failures of the Soviet Union as Stalin asserted influence after Lenin's death. 

Moving on from that, we turn our attention to the Middle East. As everyone knows, the Arab Spring was a series of protests across the region in advocacy of greater democracy and end to authoritarianism in the Middle East. It started in Tunisia, but spread to Egypt, Libya, and many other countries as the people began severely pressing for greater freedoms in multiple aspects. As the world watched, the movement spread to Syria. And all hell broke loose. Syria is a very special case in the Middle East, one that takes time to fully understand and appreciate. Since independence, the country had no real stability at all until 1970 when Hafez al-Assad took power over the country. While most people forget the strongman, he controlled Syria for 30 years before his death in 2000. Most people that know him remember him for his tough anti-Israel approach, alliance with Iran, and for placing troops in Lebanon in 1976 (http://www.sfib.org.uk/anything-goes/modern-history-syria) to abate the civil war and to deter resistance to Syria. When his son Bashar al-Assad came to power, most Syrians saw a chance for reform to take place, and some did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad). Private banking was introduced, and most importantly in 2005 Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon. But as most know, al-Assad wouldn't back down. Security is tight in the country, and economic controls are still in place. Political rights are few beyond the Ba'ath party. 

Why people were willing to fight the Syrian regime is the most important issue in this civil war. And yes, it's a civil war. When this many have died and two clear sides have emerged, it is war. Anyways, repression is a very careful path any dictator walks. The risk of going too far and curtailing too much for citizens is ever present. If a leader oppresses his people too much or too often, chances are eventually some will build up the courage and anger to revolt, and violently. This is exemplified by Libya, where deaths in the revolution were nearly immediate following the rising against Gadhafi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Libyan_civil_war). On the other hand, if a dictator is too soft and hands too many freedoms to his people, he unleashes forces longing for more, leading to massive revolution and fragmentation like the Soviet Union experienced during the end of the Gorbachev years (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html). While not necessarily as violent, this leads to far less stability. Syria under the first Assad took the former path, with a harsh powerful leadership under Hafez al-Assad which became intertwined with family, friends, and other Alawite clan members in order to consolidate his minority rule. The military helped him, and the people rarely asked for anything due to fear of speaking out, and with good reason. While his son Bashar has loosened the stranglehold, it is a slow process that won't satisfy a freedom-thirsty populace that is ever growing. Hafez created an intricate spider web to keep power, and like any web it has many holes. And those holes have been widening with each concession Bashar has made. 

With the Arab Spring, common Syrians saw their chance and took it with rebellion. Given some time, it turned violent, and has now become all-out civil war. The Free Syrian Army has become the main symbol of the opposition forces, which have taken up arms against the Assad regime and have asked for international aid to bring him down. Likewise, Assad and his complicated network in the government provide for the other side, which has brutally cracked down on opposition and has claimed the involvement of terrorists and other foreign combatants. The complexities of the situation have stalled international efforts to do anything. And now, I give my take. I support Assad. Do NOT take that the wrong way. I do not like the man, his regime, or his father. They are poor leaders, who really never deserved the positions they got. Were I given a way to stop all of this, I would have prevented Hafez from ever taking power in Syria in favor of a better leader for an important country. But what's done is done. At this point, we need to assess the pros and cons of arming the opposition, along with the outcome. The most important thing to address is the effectiveness of the Assad regime. In a few aspects, it is a good thing. First and foremost, it keeps all minority groups represented and prevents repressive majority rule as seen in Iran and Saudi Arabia. This comes from the fact that the Assads are from the Alawite sect of Islam, which represents a small portion of the country which is mostly Sunni. To protect their kin, Hafez set a system in place which serves to keep all religions and ethnicities in check. Second, leadership by the secular Ba'ath party keeps religion from taking a severely powerful position in the politics of the country. One needs to look only as far as Egypt to see that revolution has resulted in Islamists taking dominance of the body creating the constitution, preventing liberals from having much say (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717547/egypts-crisis-deepens-as-non-islamists.html). While giving people the right to govern the way they choose is something I advocate, strongly religious leadership can lead to repression and harsh dictatorship very quickly, and it is very hard to remove once in place. Iran has been extremely conservative and Islamic since the 1979 revolution, and reform efforts in the 1990s only led to clerical backlash. The same could be true for Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood leadership. Lastly, the authoritarian system keeps Syria stable and provides limited stability to its neighbors. Under Assad regime leadership, Syria has engaged in relatively few wars in a region which has had countless numbers of them. Without that in place, more than Syria and its people will be at risk.

However, there are benefits to an overthrow of Assad and the entire system he and his father created. The first is democracy. While pretty much everyone advocates democracy, I do not. I certainly like it and believe it's nice in some circumstances, but there is a reason I'm not a socialist. I believe that democracy can hinder progress at times, and that democracy can harm those involved if used correctly by leaders. However, I do think Syria could use some democracy. If Bashar can't step down, he can at least allow for peaceful dissent and more political parties which give some sense of different opinions. He has already started on this path, and I wish for it to continue. The thing I fear from Syrian democracy is the chance that the Sunni majority will exert enormous power in the government, abolishing all opposition "legally" and setting up a system of their choice which ignores minorities like Christians and Jews. I also fear terrorist influence in the government. We know that Al-Qaeda is active in the region, and that in the past year has participated in Libya and Yemen (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48575, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/clashes_between_al_qaeda_militants_YD6X99Ciz3VilN7HsE0DKI). What's to stop them from taking part in the war and then the leadership of the country? The second thing I fear is destabilization. Tearing down the regime in Syria quickly will result in an explosive reaction from Syrians. There will of course be joy and celebrations. But that can deteriorate. There can be severe violence, along with huge debate about the future of the country in new rebel hands. Most rebels are not leaders of the country, and the alliances against Assad have stated few political goals or views beyond taking down the regime. How do they plan to lead the country? Open up judicial restrictions? Wean Syria off its slowly growing dependence on oil which will have to be net imported within the next few years? These are serious issues the opposition is scarcely ready to tackle, but that Bashar al-Assad can take time to address and possibly solve if kept in power. 

Unfortunately, little progress can be made without some changes to take place. I take the stand that Russia and China have advocated, in that both sides need to drop their weapons and begin negotiations so this conflict can end. Whether we like it or not, there is death, violence, and torture on both sides. All life matters in my eyes, and with each death this war becomes more costly and pointless. Everyone knows that concessions are easier to make when neither side is physically attacking the other. There is less tension in place, allowing people to clear their heads and focus on the task at hand rather than the violent operations occurring. So in order for all this to end and peace to reign free again, I ask both Bashar al-Assad and his government to drop their arms alongside the Syrian opposition. This way, real efforts at change can be made without an entire government collapsing and endangering the region, especially Lebanon. When Beirut was destroyed, nobody was happy. Let's not let that happen to Damascus, a city with rich history which deserves respect.

That is all for this post, and part 2 will be concerning a domestic issue to be announced in said post. If you would like to ask questions, pose comments, etc., you can do so right here. My Facebook and Twitter are active, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. If you must, my Google+ account is open, although I rarely check it so don't expect immediate responses from that outlet. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.

The Superpower Thesis: An End to American Imperialism

Welcome!

This posting comes to you late due mostly to a combination of 10% laziness and 90% I've been sick. Fortunately, I have healed and am ready to make more postings. This week's topic is my first historical thesis, concerning America in the Cold War. My thesis is a follows: During the Cold War, America made countless military and diplomatic interventions around the world in support of capitalism and strongly against communism or socialism. The U.S.S.R. also intervened in neighboring European states along with other countries in order to stabilize and fund pro-communist governments. However, when the Soviet Union fell this attitude of Russian imperialism came to an end for the most part. As such, the United States was and still remains a kind of imperial power, and it will remain this way until we fall in a way similar to the Soviet Union. Or so I believe. This week's quote is from Sukarno, the founder of Indonesian independence and also a man unfairly removed from power. Once again, this is simply my belief.

As stated in the introduction, the trend of effective American colonialism will not be brought to an end unless the United States falls in some way. This could come in the form of a coup. Whether from the left, right, or the military, either way it will most likely bring American intervention to a standstill. In a leftist coup, government would most likely refrain from any global intervention unless highly justified by principle. In a right-winged or military government, the U.S. would most likely intervene whenever deemed pragmatic to our interests. And while some intervention would continue under the new government, the toppling of the regime would take the cake. Once Americans realize the true pain bureaucratic authoritarianism can bring, they will be far less willing to ever inflict it on other countries again. The fall can also be brought on through massive social or economic change. If another Great Depression were to hit, all Americans would suffer harshly. The time spent by all trying just to get by would allow us to understand what poverty is like, and why we cannot allow other nations to soak in this squalor, especially by our own hands. In the social area, sweeping removal of basic and specific rights could make the fall come. For instance, were gay marriage to be banned in all states, along with the right to die, carry weapons, have more than one child, etc. banned, Americans would be repressed significantly. While I don't believe we should carry weapons and that we should be allowed to have more than one kid, if these restrictions were imposed on us we would understand what "war on society" truly means, which most pundits really don't. Lastly, significant war loss can bring us to stop our imperialistic ways. While the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of both money and men (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html, http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/iraqdeath1000.htm), are great, this does not stop major groups from claiming that both were justified successes. While I really don't want more war and am opposed to this option, absolute loss in a devastating war would hopefully foster anti-imperialist sentiments that could help to sober our attitude. However, this is not a guaranteed success, as shown by the Vietnam War.

Before I move on to how and why America has been imperialist, I'd like to move on to counterarguments. Many would have you believe that America is not imperialist, that it never has been, and anyone who believes it has hates America. Let me say that I do not hate America. While I don't like our policies of today and those during parts of our past, I do enjoy our history and some of our customs. I enjoy basic life in America, while still seeing the problems we have. It's called having a reform-minded personality. While I don't hate us, we do need some change. I would never try to attack or destroy our country. That is what defines anti-Americanism. Moving on to the claim that America has never been imperialist, this is a poor argument. While our actions during the Cold War were not blatant imperialism, look at the facts. We occupied countless countries during the time period. We intervened against perceived "unfriendly" or "threatening" governments when we saw fit. We played the world as pawns in our quest to quash a rival. No matter what you think, it is undeniable that we were effectively an imperial power after World War 2. And while that imperialism slightly cooled down after the fall of the Soviet Union, it really wasn't much, and by the end of the 1990s we were intervening even more. As to the argument that America is not imperialist now, I point to our actions in the 1990s and early 2000s. We bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that turned out to be making aspirin (http://www.democracynow.org/1999/5/5/us_admits_error_in_bombing_of). We invaded and toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq because he was an "unfriendly dictator." While I understand that life under Hussein sucked, that doesn't mean we can just rush in and eventually kill the guy based on reasoning which turns out to be bogus (he didn't have weapons of mass destruction http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lieofthecentury.php). There are also people now who believe that while corrupt life under Hussein was ever present, the police state was stable and didn't isolate the Sunni minority (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/war-zones/at-shrine-to-saddam-hussein-in-iraq-nostalgia-for-a-fallen-leader/2011/05/18/AFvW7u7G_story.html). As such, America retains its imperial position in an unchanging state.

Now, I will provide key examples proving just how horrible the effects of Cold War imperialism were on our society and even more so on the countries we intervened in. I will use examples from one country per region (excluding Australia/Oceania). Starting in North America, I point to Nicaragua as evidence of our crimes. During much of the 1980s, the Reagan administration funded and trained  the rebel Contra movement by selling arms to Iran (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/), which I will discuss later. Both the specific crimes brought on by intervention in Nicaragua in the 1970s and 1980s by us, along with the horrors of the Contras including drug trafficking and death squads (http://libcom.org/history/articles/nicaragua-contras), caused many deaths, imprisonments, and destabilization in the country for years. Not only did this damage thousands of people including some of our own, but it was illegal at the time due to the Boland Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment). This betrayal of the legal process on harsh principle simply served to undercut our interests, rather than strengthen them. This was just one of our involvements in North America, where we made significant interventions in most of the Caribbean nations and several central American ones.

Next, I move on to South America, specifically Chile. On September 11, 1973, a right-winged military coup took power in Chile and instituted particularly harsh authoritarianism under General Augusto Pinochet. This was no simple coup, however. Earlier in 1970, the socialist candidate for the presidency Salvador Allende won the election and became the Chilean president. Allende was one of few leftist leaders in South America installed through a free and fair democratic process. He followed his ideology and began some nationalization projects along with other socialist policies. After losing American support early on, he sought Soviet support which he got. But the people of Chile were unsatisfied. Most were divided into two groups: the right, which vehemently opposed Allende and wanted a coup, and the left, which thought change wasn't coming fast enough so a leftist coup was necessary. By 1973, a coup was likely. And at this point, we made our move. We supported a right-winged military coup under General Augusto Pinochet, which was quickly successful. The regime would go on to torture and kill dissidents in a trigger happy manner for years, with horrible results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_government_of_Chile_(1973%E2%80%931990)). We had made propaganda moves in the country earlier, and at this point we took no more. But was preserving capitalism a worthwhile cause to justify the atrocities of what followed? I think not.

Now, onto Europe and Asia. In Europe, I point to the effective election rigs and funding we put in place in the late 1940s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_general_election,_1948, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/366654/Marshall-Plan). In Italy, there was a "threat" of communists being elected to power. So we funded opposition candidates, bought votes, and used propaganda to ensure that Italy had no chance to become a Soviet ally. Unfortunately, we subjugated the democratic process to do this. For the Marshall Plan, I point specifically to Greece, where we supported a right-winged government and countless leaders with deplorable human rights records for our benefit, and Turkey, a country which we buoyed so it wouldn't want to give Russia access to ports. Is any of this even close to justified? We gave up our very own principles which we claimed to defend here. This makes us imperialist, and no better than the governments we have supported. In Asia, I point specifically to the southeast, where our interventions were strongly militaristic. Everyone knows the atrocities of our failed war in Vietnam (yes, we lost; when the objective is to prevent communism and it takes the country, you have lost). But we also bombed Laos and Cambodia significantly in the same time period, along with giving direct aid to anti-leftists in Thailand and supporting a military coup under Suharto in Indonesia (http://libcom.org/history/1948-1991-us-intervention-and-war-in-south-east-asia). Once again, our actions only hurt us. Not only did two of those countries beat us and become communist (Laos and Vietnam), but the others were severely damaged. Cambodia would experience significant suffering under the Khmer Rouge, a reaction to our attacks in the country. The atrocities our imperialism have created, simply put, mean that we can no longer continue in this fashion.

Lastly, I point to the Middle East and Africa. As noted earlier, in the Middle East I turn to Iran and Iraq. Specifically, the war between the two countries. From 1980 to 1988, both countries fought a brutal, deplorable war over land and control. Saddam Hussein led Iraq, using chemical and biological weapons on the Iranians and at times on Iraqis. Ayatollah Khomeini received rockets and used hatred as motivation for soldiers in the border conflict. During this time, the Reagan administration took up double containment (http://www.payvand.com/news/08/mar/1200.html), a policy which fostered effective support for both sides in the hopes they would destroy each other and give us an opening in the region. Once the Iran-Contra scandal erupted, both Iran and Iraq were shocked at this mistrust. This would serve to foster anti-Americanism in both countries, a fault purely our own. In Africa, I point to Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Angola, we supported South African backed rebels to prevent communism, resulting in a long, bloody civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War), and in the DRC we collaborated to assassinate Lumumba, setting off destabilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba). In both cases, we simply killed and backed anyone that represented a threat to communism, no matter how horrible. This is deplorable, and provides a furthering for my case.

In conclusion, these terrible events and more prove that America has acted in an imperial way since the end of World War 2, and that only a fall of some sort will bring us to stop these conflicts. I hope I have provided a full and thorough analysis that establishes my point well. If you have questions, comments, or anything else to say simply say it in the comments. My Facebook and Twitter are both active, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. That is all for this week, and this is SuperJew McLovin signing off. 

Occupy All Streets: Why Occupiers Are Right

Hello all!

Once again, I have not posted on my normal weekly basis. This time, it was solely because I had forgotten to post until I realized that I hadn't just yesterday. So as compensation, I have attempted to make this post longer and more in depth as repayment to my readers. This week's post concerns the Occupy movement which erupted over our country and some other cities around the world last year due to discontent with the system of wealth. The instant it occurred, conservatives everywhere dismissed the movement as anti-American, or anti-capitalist, or added a number of other arguments. Either way, when the rich in America make common arguments, most of them are seriously flawed. I seek to debase these points in my post this week. This week's quote is from Ireland's first taoiseach (prime minister), who had good sentiments from time to time. 

Moving on, there are many ways the rich and right-wing supporters can defend the so-called job creators. One major argument is that occupiers are too young or too uninformed to know how the system works, and therefore they should have no say in the debate. This is wrong. While there will always be stupid people crying out stupid things about government, the truth is that the stupid rarely are energetic enough to mount well-organized political protest. This is because the uninformed generally don't even know enough about politics to get involved beyond voting occasionally. There were many young people in the protests, yes, but just as many were not young. Hell, there were stories about old people getting shot in the face with pepper spray (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/402493/november-16-2011/elderly-occupier-pepper-sprayed). Just because young people take part doesn't mean they are stupid. When you're in college, chances are you're not woefully stupid unless you're in some unheard of community college. Beyond that, college kids are generally not dumb, and many are just as informed about politics and economics as politicians. Some are even more informed. So don't rule out demographics just because you think they're different than you. 

As stated in the intro, many conservatives have dismissed the protests as anti-American or anti-capitalist, as though this was a communist terrorist protest of some sort. The Occupy movement is not this. While some protesters may have held signs that declared capitalism is the problem, the overwhelming majority were simply not communists or anti-capitalists. The protesters were however against corrupted plutocratic capitalism that our country has developed, in which the rich benefit significantly while the poor suffer and grow in numbers. They advocated a change within the system, not a wholesale change of government itself. At least, most of them did. And saying that the rich should pay a fair share does not constitute anti-Americanism. Shouting "death to America" certainly does, but unless a group of people are asking for the end of America itself or its government entirely then that people is not anti-American. And even if the Occupy movement was both of these, does that mean we should simply pay no heed to them? In America all voices are important and must be heard, whether we like it or not. That is the way our country is set up, and that is why Nazis can hold marches in our streets. Get used to it. 

Another thing many rich folk say in their defense goes something like this: "500K a year may sound like a lot, but I'm hardly rich." Representative John Flemming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HW2VW-Z1M94) and Senator Chuck Schumer (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65272.html) have both made remarks like this. This is flawed due to the fact that while many rich may say they are near broke at the end of each month, this is due to the huge amounts of spending they do each month. Big houses, yachts, vacations, maids, and other things cost a lot of money, and when you spend your big bucks on all that chances are yes, you will have wasted up your monthly checks. Problem is that you didn't have to spend all that money. You could save it by having a smaller house, no yacht, no vacation, and by cleaning your own damn house. The elite don't notice this because we are biologically programmed not to. You don't notice your advantages because that makes you want to keep getting more, which is therefore better for survival. So while all blame can't be put on the rich here, we should still be able to get past our instincts with logic and learn to save some of those big gains you make each month. 

Yet another point made by the rich is that they worked hard to get where they are. Wayne Allyn Root (http://www.newsmax.com/WayneAllynRoot/Small-Business-Owners-taxes/2011/11/28/id/419233) and Alec MacGillis (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/100946/the-gop-conundrum-in-two-great-quotes) have made arguments like this. While the rich often do put in lots of hours (like Bill Gates), the Occupiers aren't saying they are lucky in that sense. First, society doesn't truly reward people based on effort alone. If it did, then mine workers doing 80-hour weeks in horrible conditions would be rich as hell. So just because a rich person may or may not work harder, that does not justify making more than a poor person. This argument also implies that a person's wealth is equal to his or her value to society, and that the poor must be lazy drags on everyone else. This coming from the people espousing family values. Do they not realize that stay-at-home parents who give their kids values make no money each day? Volunteering at a homeless shelter pays nothing. Bringing water to central Africa pays nothing. Yet these duties are of high value to society despite the lack of wealth involved. Occupiers are saying that the rich are lucky in the sense that they were born in a time and place where the work they were good at was valued over the hard work of other fields. Some rich would then say that they would use their smarts and determination to switch to another field and be equally as successful if they knew it would pay more. Unfortunately, this rarely works. If you want an example, simply look at how poorly Michael Jordan did as a baseball player. Turns out that just because you are good at one thing, doesn't mean you can be just as good at other things. 

Next, I've heard plenty of rich Americans or conservatives claim that because they can do it, so can we. This was exemplified by Governor Mitch Daniels (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/24/10228650-in-state-of-the-union-response-ind-gov-us-is-country-of-haves-and-soon-to-haves). But this is ridiculous. The rich barely have to leave their house to see their yard workers to prove themselves wrong on this one. Even if one worker is amazing at yard work and does 100 hours a week, he'll never get rich doing that. Ever. Even if that yard worker had the skills for hedge fund investments, started his own firm and got rich, very few people would have that array of skills and the ability to pull that off. Just because it's possible for people to attain the skills for well-paying jobs, it doesn't mean that everyone can get those jobs. Just because anyone can do it, that doesn't mean everyone can do it. 

Many a rich man's tirade against Occupiers boils down to the assertion that the poor are just jealous of the success of the rich. Candidate Mitt Romney (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ismksjp10q0&feature=player_embedded-Mitt) and former candidate Herman Cain (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3460_162-20117827-2.html?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody) made this part of their daily speeches at times. This is so wrong it makes me want to cry. Most of America's heroes are rich. Batman is so rich he can afford a freaking batmobile with weaponry built in, along with an elaborate underground layer. Little kids put posters in their rooms of famous musicians and actors. When Christmas comes around, we look at Scrooge and realize that by the end of the story we always love him. Not because he gave up his wealth and became poor, but because he stopped acting like a total ass. The rich argue back that it is not our business to criticize what they do with their money. But in any society, social pressures on our decisions exist because we must keep each other in check. The reason people normally don't murder each other is because there are both societal and criminal consequences for such actions. Because power and money eliminate many of the checks on how terrible a person you are, society turns up the heat in other ways. The fact that the rich don't like this only proves that the pressure is working. This is why we hate dictators, bullies, etc. They do not acknowledge that with their wealth and/or power comes responsibility. 

This next one is one of my favorites. The argument that Occupiers seek to punish success, the "job-creators" of our nation. So many have said this, including John E. Kramer (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/4/occupy-envy/), Bernard Goldberg (http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/success-should-be-encouraged-not-punished/), House Speaker John Boehner (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/05/15/Boehner-warns-against-tax-hikes-for-rich/UPI-21271305480482/), and Sean Hannity (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423881,00.html). To Sean: lots of poor people listen to you, and your advertisers pay you with money they get from the poor people that buy their products. So that joke is false, in a sense. People get jobs not because of a few rich people, but rather because everyone works together at some level in society, in a cycle most often. As for the punishing success part, this is insane. You get asked to pitch in not because we are judging you, not because it is fairer that way, but rather because there is stuff that needs to get done. There are people that need help and buildings that need to be made. The rich simply have more resources to pitch in with. And while you may think you already give your fair share, so does everybody. In life, we all feel like we're getting the short end of the stick. In reality, the rich are doing fine, so contributing a little more won't kill them. 

Lastly, many rich argue that Occupiers should stop asking for handouts because the rich believe that they never got help from anybody. Craig T. Nelson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U) along with the guy in the photo here (http://persephonemagazine.com/2011/10/dont-even-get-me-started-mythical-bootstraps-college-student/) have tried this argument. The idea that the rich got to where they are completely by themselves is absolutely impossible. Were they hunting for food from birth, denying the handouts of breast milk? Did they not have parents that provided a home to live in and water to drink? Did they not go to schools paid for by people other than themselves? Were they not protected by police and others that were paid by other people? Did they not drive on roads built by other people, in cars made by other people, burning gas drilled by other people in countries whose borders were protected by other people? While we shouldn't be waiting for help to come along, that also means that the rich aren't living in a self-sufficient little space which is surrounded by dirty hobos asking for help. Let's say a rich man builds up a little army and decides to march onto your property. You can't defend yourself with your guns, because they have more. So you'll call the cops, whom are other people risking their lives while being paid by other people's taxes, who will try this army in court paid by other people's taxes, under laws made by Congressmen and women paid by other people's taxes. If none of that existed, that rich guy could take your stuff and kill you with his army easily. Without society to help you and protect you, your individual talents aren't worth jack squat. The rich didn't ask for help, because countless people had set up a lavish support system for them in the first place. We live in a society where ultimate success is the finish line, and most of us are placed about an inch from it to start with. So denying people help because you think you got none is one of the worst points you could bring up. 

And that is all for this week, and I hope my extra long analysis makes up for my fault last week. If you have questions or comments of any kind, you can leave them here. My email is zerospintop@live.com, and my Facebook and Twitter are still open if necessary. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off. 

The Gay Agenda: The Fight for American Gay Rights

Greetings all!

Welcome to my blog, this time being posted on President's Day in honor of our past leaders. The topic for this week is the gay rights movement in America, specifically what is being done and what must be done to achieve the civil rights of our people. This week's quote is by Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of the Indian independence movement along with Jawaharlal Nehru, and a strong advocate of nonviolence. It's simply a little quote that I find truthful often. Now, to the debate at hand. 

Gay rights are a sticky issue in America, primarily because of religious belief that they should not be able to get married, have kids, etc. This is a prominent belief among Christian conservatives, along with Islamic conservatives (though not as common in America). In both groups, the denial of gay marriage comes with the inherent belief that marriage is a religious establishment and is therefore protected by the state. And yes, there is so much wrong with this. Many people still say that gay is a disease or a genetic deformity, and therefore they shouldn't get married. But does this make sense? Even if gay was a disease or an inherited genetic problem (which it is not), that doesn't give anyone the power to take away their civil rights. People with AIDS have just as much right as those without, and therefore were gay a disease (it is not), gays should be able to receive equal treatment anyway. Another argument is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because then they'll raise kids, and psychology would suggest that this would be a poor parenting model. I'm pretty sure that having two crack-addicted, dumbass parents is also a poor parenting model. But if they're straight, they can still get married and raise kids. News flash, people: most gays are not crack-addicted dumbasses. So why shouldn't they be able to marry and have kids?

Some people argue that gay is unnatural and that because only humans do it, it must be something wrong with us. This is false, actually. Tons of species practice homosexuality (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx), with about 8% of those species that do being gay. That's awfully close to the amount of humans which have admitted to having experimented with homosexuality in their lives (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/williams-institute-report-reveals-million-gay-bisexual-transgender/story?id=13320565#.T0LimYePWuk). After looking at these reports, we can make out that gay is just as natural in humans as it is for a significant portion of the animal kingdom. Therefore, no reason to deny gay rights. Now, we come to the two major arguments against gay rights in America. Almost every denier of gay rights uses these or believes these at some time, and many often use these arguments whenever gay rights come up. These are the belief that gay is a choice, and that gay marriage/child rearing goes against religious institutions. 

Let's look at the "gay is a choice" argument first. On the surface, it is already flawed. Conservatives make a constant barrage of speech about how the federal government should not be able to dictate the way we run our daily lives, and how government should not be able to force us to choose something or force us to not choose something. Do you see the hypocrisy? Even if gay was a choice (which it is not), that would be no reason to deny gay rights to marriage. Because by doing so, the federal government implies that it favors heterosexuals, and it does not want people choosing to be gay. By restricting the rights of gays, the federal government would encourage people to repress their "choice", thereby making America into something conservatives fear most: a country where the government has first and final say. 

Now, to the second counterpoint. Gay is most certainly not a choice. A reason many people use is that there is no scientific evidence pointing to people being born gay. This is what is known as an argument based on negative evidence, where no evidence to the contrary means that the hypothesis can be assumed as true until positive evidence disproving it is discovered. This is the same kind of argument that the people hunting Bigfoot and ghosts use. "Just 'cuz you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not real." Look, I really don't care. Bigfoot and ghosts don't exist, because there is no evidence to support their existence. On the topic of being born gay, we at least have an indicator: most all gays say they are born gay. Since gays have firsthand experience, I'll take their word for it rather than denying the only thing we have close to proof. I don't know about you, but I don't have the rampant egotism necessary to think I know better than them. 

And now, the final anti-gay rights argument. The religious one, my favorite. Conservatives consistently note that marriage is a religious institution, and that by allowing universal gay marriage we force religions to accept a secular law that does not agree with their religious freedoms. Since this is a pluralistic society where freedom of religion is important, this is the only anti-gay argument that I accept as valid on face-value. Unfortunately, this point cannot apply to us. Mostly because at every point in our history, civil rights trump religion. They always have, and they always will, and this is a good thing about our country. We are not like Iran, where protection of Sh'ia Islam overrides rights whenever deemed necessary by the Ayatollah. My proof is in the 1960s, the American Civil Rights movement for black peoples of America. One of the contentious issues of the times was that many churches and other religious houses would not perform interracial marriages because it went against their beliefs to do so. In 1967, the Supreme Court gave a resounding "hell no" to that argument. They did this because, as I have stated, civil rights trump religious ones. If we are to ensure a fair and just society, we must be willing to sacrifice a little so that all our people live with equal treatment and rights. This applies to modern times. Just because churches don't want to marry gays, that doesn't give them the power to deny the civil rights of homosexuals, and it never will. 

One more thing: saying that gay marriage will lead to animal marriage is bogus, because ANIMALS ALREADY DON'T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS HUMANS. They don't, and they never will. People won't be marrying animals after gays, because people simply don't want to. Also, by using this argument you effectively imply that gays are no better than animals, so it only makes you look bad. It only hurts you.

That is all for this week, and I hope I have attacked the issue at all angles. If you feel I missed something, would like to add something, or etc. simply leave a comment right here. My Facebook and Twitter account are also open, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off. 

Justice Is Done: The Killing of Osama Bin Laden

Welcome to my blog!

After weeks of not posting due to various reasons, I have returned to post once again. Note that in the future, I will avoid not posting if at all possible. This week’s topic is right in the title; the culmination of American efforts to find and end Osama Bin Laden. The reason I address this is not because I supported the man, or Al-Qaeda, but rather because of the ethical issues our mission and treatment of said mission bring about. This week's quote is from current president of the United States Barack Hussein Obama, after Bin Laden had been killed. It holds no significance separate from this post, but I thought it would be good to include.

Now on to the topic at hand. Osama Bin Laden was not a good person. This is undeniable; his actions over the years allowed terrorism to grow and many people to die without reason. However, we also murdered him. Yes, I know that he has killed many. But we can't allow our nation to pull stuff like this. Even after World War 2 ended and Nazi leaders were captured, we didn't kill them immediately. They were put on trial for their horrendous crimes first. They got the death sentence, but we were still willing to give them the rights of due process before acting against them. The Nazis killed far more than Bin Laden ever did, and yet we shot him on sight. While I would not have opposed the death sentence for him, I do believe he deserved his right to a fair trial before having his life taken. This is what makes us different from other nations, and if we wish to declare our superiority or feel good about ourselves as a nation, we must use this as evidence. By extinguishing Osama before he had a chance to trial by jury, we eliminate the possibility of ever redeeming ourselves of our so-called greatness. Michael Moore made this point a while ago, and I agree with it in full (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/some-final-thoughts-on-death-of-osama-bin-laden).

But many still argue that it was a just cause, due to the way Bin Laden struck against the U.S. without provocation. This isn't entirely untrue, but unfortunately this is another instance of us bringing terrible things upon ourselves. It starts in the early 1980's, when we backed and trained the Taliban against the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan. While it served our interest of beating communism then (an unjust cause, I might add), the Taliban would later become the group that would shelter and train Al-Qaeda. We did another disservice to ourselves in the Iran-Iraq War when we backed both sides as part of double containment. When Iran-Contra was exposed, Iraq and Iran found out we backed both of them in order to destroy them both. This created serious hatred for the U.S. Afghanistan watched this, as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda growled. Now they were trained, armed, and had a common enemy. Then Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, and they watched as the U.S. and coalition western forces trounced Saddam Hussein. Their drive against America was fueled. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, with Bin Laden responsible. No surprise there. But everything culminated starting in 2000 and ending in 2001. During this short period, the Bush government provided aid to Afghanistan, unaware of what was going on. And then, the September 11 bombings occurred. We were devastated and afraid, and finally saw how the Taliban worked. So we invaded Afghanistan and crushed them, forcing Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to flee. But the damage had been done at this point. We have given weapons and training to our enemies, and then given them reasons to hate us and even attack us. So while the terrorist strikes against the U.S. came from Osama, it's not like we didn't help push him to it. 

But some would still say that capture was impossible, and therefore killing Osama was the only viable option beyond allowing him to flee. Bullcrap. We had him surrounded by highly trained men with strong weaponry. We mowed down the guards, and had him ready to surrender. But the "shoot first, ask questions later" motto apparently also applies to the military, because that's what we did. We could have captured him and held a trial, and then put him to death. But we forfeited that opportunity to improve our image by at least a little. However, what's done is done I suppose. Now that Bin Laden is gone and Al-Qaeda is falling back, we can finally rest a little easier knowing terrorism won't be an enormous threat for sometime as long as they have no coordinated leader. That's what I thought, until just weeks later when I heard a movie would be made about the mission. Are we serious? Not only do we have to murder a guy and then cheer about it, but then we have to glorify said murder by making it into a film? Nothing got better when I saw the trailer just days ago, with the ad going along to the soundtrack of Eminem. This is sad. We kill a guy, and then make murderers into heroes while mixing in a drug-addled white rapper. Perfect. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, seeing as this is acceptable as true American spirit nowadays. None of this is right, and we should be ashamed at least to some degree. We need to try to preserve our integrity.

Well, that is all for this week, and I hope I have provided a full response to the issue at hand. If you'd like to say something to me, ask a question, or anything else you can do so in the comments section here. I also have a Facebook and a twitter, and my email at zerospintop@live.com is still open. That is all, and this is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.