Search This Blog

Saturday, October 25, 2014

A Farewell

This post is purely intended as a goodbye. To all readers, thank you for sticking with me all this time. From this point forward, any and all political writing I do will only be posted to my DeviantArt account, so don’t expect to see anything more here. This blog is now being discontinued, forever.

Once again, thank you for all your support. Farewell!

Signed,
KnoFear

Friday, December 27, 2013

Unionization and Inequality: A Research Paper

Greetings all!


Now that I look at it, it really has been a while since I last posted something here. Needless to say, I’ve been working out some issues with this blog, along with struggling to get back into writing after an odd writer’s block. Regular posting will likely resume in the New Year, but to bide my time I’ll be posting my research paper I did for my economics of poverty class this past semester. It covers the link between unionization and inequality. This week’s quote comes from Carl Sagan, a legendary modern intellectual.

Unionization and Inequality: An Economic Analysis

Introduction

Five years into an economic recession among most developed nations, the issues of income and wealth inequality have been brought to the forefront of economic discussion. A piece of debate centers of unionization rates within the nations in question, chiefly because some of these countries have escaped the hardest throes of economic suffering while others have fallen by the wayside. If a higher level of unionization in a nation is a large factor in curbing inequality and thereby boosting the economy, then such information would be highly valuable. To determine if this is true, we have taken three developed, western countries for study over a period from 1970 to 2012: the United States, Canada, and Finland. The United States is the control, a country in which the unionization rate has drastically fallen. Canada and Finland are the objects of research, with each representing a country where unionization rates have steadily fallen and one where unionization rates have risen, respectively. Will the relative pace of technological change influence the Gini coefficient of a country, even though the three countries involved are all relatively equally advanced? Will non-corresponding years of growth and contraction significantly change the numbers of those experiencing poverty in these countries? And lastly, will the rate of unionization among employed persons in these countries reduce the inequality they experience? We intend to answer these questions by examining the conditions in each nation separately, and then comparing them in the end.

The United States

            The U.S. is the control for this study because, like most developed countries, its unionized workers as a percentage of employed persons has been falling for many years at a speedy pace. At the beginning of the trial period in 1970, the percentage of employed persons whom belonged to unions exceeded 24% [1]. By 2012, that rate had fallen by more than half, to just 11.3% [2]. And while union membership levels fluctuated during the 1970s briefly, since then the progression towards less unionization has been constant and sharp. Despite some changes to American labor laws since 1970 that have favored unionized workers, in general the fall in union membership can be contributed to various factors which emphasized greater flexibility and deregulation of the labor market since the mid-1980s [3].

            We will now examine the level of inequality in the United States, and whether other factors may contribute more to it than union membership of those whom are employed. During the 1970s, the era of stagflation and competing economic theories to replace Keynesianism [4] led to deep recession, thus likely explaining the unstable unionization rate during this time period. Since then however, the United States has mostly experienced consistent economic growth barring short recessions from 1981-1982, 1990-1991, and 2000-2001. Thus, it should follow that income inequality levels should have steadily fallen over said time period, but this is not the case. For example, the relative level of technological progress and advancement in countries is often considered a large factor in increasing inequality because new creations replace human workers, thereby raising joblessness while narrowing the available labor market. Therefore, it should follow that in nations experiencing similar technological growth, inequality must be growing as well. However, this is not uniformly the case [5], as several nations where technology has made leaps and bounds are now less unequal in terms of income and wealth than they were previously. Another factor in greater inequality is the restructuring of industries and the shift to services, wherein fewer people do more work which is generally white collar in nature, as opposed to the blue collar past. Again, though, this is not always true [6], as in nations like Poland and Romania the rise of services and abandonment of heavy industry have led to slight or significant decreases in the Gini coefficient. Lastly, globalization is often pointed to as being responsible for major economic shifts towards greater inequality in developed countries. This is an indisputable fact in developing nations, simply due to great demand for cheap labor which the less educated populace can’t keep up with. This study is concerned instead with developed nations, and globalization has, in many cases, led to less [7] inequality among these countries like Austria, Belgium, Estonia, etc. Through all this, we can definitively say that the unionization rate is linked directly to the level of inequality in the United States.

Canada

            Canada represents the moderate experimental factor in this study. Compared to the United States, the Canadian unionization rate has fallen at a much slower pace. Canada has gone from a high union membership percentage of 33.7% in 1997 to 31.5% in 2012 [8], a much less radical drop and a still fair level of unionized worker representation in the total employed population. In fact, from 1970 until the late 1990s the unionization rate in Canada grew [9], from a low of 33.6% in 1970 to a high of 38.1% in 1985. Only since that point has the union membership rate steadily fallen to where it sits today. While Canada did experience sharp yet brief recessions in the early 1980s and 1990s and from 1995-1996, it has mostly gone through strong and constant growth while maintaining budget surpluses. And, in parallel with the United States, Canadian public policy has done about the same in terms of protections (or lack of protections) for workers over the years, giving about the same results when linked to inequality levels.

            And now, onto the levels of inequality in Canada for the trial period. The Gini coefficient for Canada approached 0.30 in 1970, falling to a low of 0.281 in 1989, and reaching a high of around 0.32 in 2012 [10]. The initial fall in the Gini coefficient occurred despite financial and budget shortfalls during said period, while the rising inequality period only had one significant recession during 1995-1996. Again, we must examine whether other factors in Canada’s progression since 1970 have contributed more towards inequality than the unionization rate; after all, with so many years of growth, Canadian inequality should have been shrinking. We start with technological growth and its relation to industry once more. While Canada started the trial period with less technological advancement than the United States, it has largely become an equally modern, developed nation. In fact, Canadian infrastructure is in better shape [11] than infrastructure in the United States [12], and thus technological changes are likely not a largely differentiating factor. And, as proven previously in the section on the United States, the restructuring of industries and shift to services has not been a uniquely strong piece of the changes to Canadian inequality, especially since similar nations have experienced less inequality over the time period in question. However, it should be noted that the primary sector of the Canadian economy represents a greater portion of the complete Canadian economy [13] than in the United States. Of course, the final possible influence in differences of inequality is the impact and spread of globalization in Canada. It can certainly be noted that the population size of Canada in relation to its scale of globalization may have a diluting effect on said impact, yet Canada is still generally considered to be equally as globalized as the United States [14]. As such, rising and lowering levels of inequality in Canada are likely not tied to the extent of globalization it has experienced. Thus, the union membership rate among employed persons in Canada must be a greater deciding piece instead.

Finland

            Finland, unlike most developed, modern nations of the west, has seen its unionization rate from 1970 to 2012 rise, and fairly so. Finland started with 51.3% of its workers unionized in 1970, rising all the way to 80.7% in 1993 [15], and then down to 69.0% by 2012 [16]. While the total percentage as a part of population has fallen since its peak in the 1990s, the union membership rate in Finland has greatly increased since the beginning of the trial period, despite population growth. Finland has also fared generally better than either the United States or Canada over the time period selected, with just one major recession between 1991 and 1993 [17] during the time period (excluding the global recession which began in 2008, in which Finland has experienced brief yet sharp GDP shrinkage). This is in contrast to both the United States and Canada, both of which have entered recession more frequently from 1970 to 2012. It should be noted that, also unlike either Canada or the United States, until the mid to late 1980s Finland did not pursue a liberalized economic market economy, and thus public policy was likely an element up until neoliberal policies were put in place.

            Based on trends within this paper, one would expect inequality in Finland to be lower than either Canada or the United States, and to have fallen over the trial period. However, this is not universally the case. While the Finnish Gini coefficient did fall from 1970 at about 0.30 up until about 1986 at about 0.19, it has risen dramatically since then [18], to about 0.28 in 2006 alone. The Gini coefficient in 2012 is only slightly lower, reaching 0.27 by the end of the trial period [19]. Despite this inclination-interrupting knowledge, the other usual aspects which would affect inequality levels are quite the same in modern Finland. Finland is a high-technology and knowledge-driven economy, with an infrastructure ranking of 6th in the world [20], 18 places above the United States and 8 places above Canada. While Finland does have a strong primary sector based around the timber and forestry industries, services still make up nearly ¾ of all Finnish jobs [21]. And lastly, while globalization has largely come late to Finland (the Finnish economy was not truly internationalized until the 1990s), Finland is just as privy to international trade and markets as the United States and Canada are today [22]. Thus, it cannot be decidedly concluded that the Finnish unionization rate is linked to its income and wealth inequality.

Conclusion and Further Analysis

            The hypothesis of this study was as follows: a higher unionization rate among employed workers in a nation would correspond with lower inequality of income and wealth among citizens. In addition, we predicted that a rising union membership percentage over time would correlate with falling inequality. In both Canada and the United States, these predictions appeared true. Both nations exhibited the negative situation of the hypothesis, one in which unionization fell and inequality rose. And yet, Finland disproved the link between unionization and inequality, and highly so. For as the Finnish unionization rate has surged over the trial period between 1970 and 2012, the Gini coefficient for Finland has also risen. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study must be rejected. While it may be plausible that unionization rates play a role in inequality, it is a falsehood to say that they are a deciding attribute.

            Therefore, this means that something else must be providing a grander engine of inequality in the economies of developed nations. It is possible that currency changes and revaluations helped drive inequality up or down in Finland, given that said nation switched to usage of the euro in 1999. However, based on appearances alone it would seem that public policy is likely a larger factor in determining levels of income inequality among nations. For the purposes of this study, public policy was only reviewed on a cursory basis because comparisons are nearly impossible between Canada, Finland, and the United States. The three countries started out in 1970 with vastly different national attitudes, population sizes, economic divisions, and state models. However, certain aspects of the effect of public policy can be seen individually in these countries. In the United States, a switch over from Keynesianism in the 1980s is reflected in the unionization rate, which fluctuated in the 1970s and began falling shortly afterward. This clearly is linked to the Gini coefficient, which also rose correspondingly. In Finland, pursuance of the Nordic economic model dropped off in the mid-1980s, and this too is seen to quickly change the inequality among Finns. Due to this, we believe closer study of economic policy between these nations is necessary to determine how linked to inequality public policy may truly be. For the time being though, it is certain that unionization rates do not determine income and wealth inequality levels.

Bibliography
[1]Mayer, Gerald. "Union Membership Trends in the United States." Digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu. Cornell University, 31 Aug. 2004. Web. 16 Dec. 2013. <http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=key_workplace>.
[2]Union Members Summary 2012. N.p.: BLS, 2013. BLS.gov. Web. 16 Dec. 2013. <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm>.
[3]"Labor in America: The Worker's Role." USA.embassy.de. U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2013. <http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/oecon/chap9.htm>.
[4]Akard, Patrick J. Corporate Mobilization and Political Power: The Transformation of U.S. Economic Policy in the 1970s. N.p.: State U of New York at Albany, 1992. JSTOR. Web. 16 Dec. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2095915.pdf?acceptTC=true>.
[5]Lustig, Nora, Luis F. Lopez-Calva, and Eduardo Ortiz-Juarez. "Declining Inequality in Latin America in the 2000s: The Cases of Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico." Stonecenter.tulane.edu. Tulane University, 16 July 2012. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. <http://stonecenter.tulane.edu/uploads/Lustiget_al_IneqLA_WP_July16_2012-1347378735.pdf>.
[6]"GINI Index." Data.worldbank.org. World Bank, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI/countries/1W?display=default>.
[7]"EurLIFE-Gini Index." Eurofound.europa.eu. Eurofound, 26 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. <http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=158&idDomain=3>.
[8]"Work-Unionization Rates." Hrsdc.gc.ca. Employment and Social Development Canada, 18 Dec. 2013. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. <http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=17>.
[9]Riddell, W. Craig. "Unionization in Canada and the United States: A Tale of Two Countries." Nber.org. National Bureau of Economic Research, Jan. 1993. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. <http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11147.pdf>.
[10]"Income Inequality." Confboard.ca. Conf Board of Canada, Jan. 2013. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. <http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx>.
[11]Ferreira, Bill, et al. "Canadian Infrastructure Report Card." Canadainfrastructure.ca. Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Sept. 2012. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://www.canadainfrastructure.ca/downloads/Canadian_Infrastructure_Report_Card_EN.pdf>.
[12]Victor, Robert, et al. "2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure." Infrastructurereportcard.org. American Society of Civil Engineers, Mar. 2013. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/documents/2013-Report-Card.pdf>.
[13]Leduc, Benoit. "Sectoral Outlook 2012-2014." Servicecanada.gc.ca. Service Canada, June 2012. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/qc/sectoral_outlook/so_Laurentides.pdf>.
[14]Lynch, Kevin G. "Succeeding in a Globalized World: Canada's Challenge and Opportunity." Pco-bcp.gc.ca. Privy Council Office of Canada, 15 Nov. 2007. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=clerk-greffier&sub=archives&doc=20071115-eng.htm>.
[15]Visser, Jelle. "Union Membership Statistics in 24 Countries." Bls.gov. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2006. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/01/art3full.pdf>.
[16]"Trade Union Density." Stats.oecd.org. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=20167>.
[17]Gorodnichenko, Yuriy, Enrique G. Mendoza, and Linda L. Tesar. "The Finnish Great Depression: From Russia with Love." Emlab.berkeley.edu. U of California, Berkeley, Feb. 2011. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~ygorodni/GMT_FINLAND.pdf>.
[18]Atkinson, A. B. "Income Inequality in Historical and Comparative Perspective." Gini-research.org. GINI Project, Mar. 2010. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://www.gini-research.org/system/uploads/19/original/Atkinson_GINI_Mar2010_.pdf?1269619027>.
[19]Riitta, Harala. "Income Differentials Narrowed in 2012." Stat.fi. Statistics Finland, 18 Dec. 2013. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://www.stat.fi/til/tjkt/2012/02/tjkt_2012_02_2013-12-18_tie_002_en.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+StatisticsFinland+(Statistics+Finland)>.
[20]"Engineer's Report Card on America's Infrastructure." Budget.senate.gov. United States Senate, 2009. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=5bfb1680-45c7-4223-977f-58456d885d88>.
[21]"Service Sector Productivity in Finland." Tobb.org.tr. Finland Central Chamber of Commerce, 2006. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://www.tobb.org.tr/UlkeRehberi/Documents/Ulkeler/finlandiya/servicesektor.pdf>.

[22]Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P., and Dino Pinnelli. "The Challenge of Globalization for Finland and Its Regions: The New Economic Geography Perspective." Vnk.fi. Prime Minister's Office of Finland, 2004. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://vnk.fi/julkaisukansio/2004/j24-challenge-of-globalization/pdf/en.pdf>.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

The Creeping Devil: Russian Nationalism

Greetings all!


This piece represents a conglomeration of work which I feel I may have overdone, in view of the length of time I used to write it. My return piece concerns the growing trend of Russian nationalism, a right-wing philosophy has been essentially the national policy of the Kremlin. This week’s quote comes from Éamon de Valera, an Irish Taoiseach and political leader whom I mostly respect for his leadership of the anti-treaty IRA, rather than his rampant social conservatism.  

Russia for Russians: A Brief History

Russian nationalism has been a mix of historic attitudes and Orthodox Church support for centuries now. In the past, tsars manipulated the xenophobia of Russian peasants generally to stoke support for non-Western varieties of modernization or expansion. Given that Russia was harshly dealt with by Mongol invaders, it’s not hard to see where a general dislike of foreigners may have originated.

A radical sea change began with the October Revolution in 1917. Suddenly, the entirety of Russia (and soon, the Soviet Union) was now under the leadership of an internationalist and a communist, Vladimir Lenin. For the first time in decades, the goal of the state was no longer that of territorial expansion to the detriment of non-Russian citizens. And while the Civil War was no laughing matter for minorities and Russians alike, the fact stood for a brief time that nationalism would no longer be a facet of Russian life.

However, Lenin died long before his visions of communist society could truly be realized. And after his death, the single most divisive figure in Soviet history came to the helm of the Union: Joseph Stalin. Rapid industrialization and an enormous war effort gave Stalin a reason to co-opt nationalism, and given it certainly did help improve morale and drive during those times. However, Stalin still had full grasp of the situation, and thus monstrous anti-immigrant riots were understandably uncommon during his years in power.

Soviet leaders after Stalin did relatively little to stop nationalism in the U.S.S.R., although none truly exploited it for much gain, either. Khrushchev embarked on “de-Stalinization,” but this didn’t mean very much, honestly, especially given how Brezhnev somewhat re-Stalinized the country during his term. By the time the Union fell apart, the nationalist tide was not calm, but was not particularly strong at least.

Yeltsin had other issues to deal with besides nationalism while he was in power (like a violent constitutional crisis and the worst depression any country has ever seen). Putin, however, has taken great advantage of nationalism since he became president over a decade ago, mostly a result of the booming oil/gas-based economic recovery.

Off the Rails

Russia has now experienced a serious and debilitating economic contraction in both past decades, each time inciting violence and stirring anti-immigrant attitudes. This is expected; in crisis, the extremes of the political spectrum always have the most to gain, and nationalists are always extreme in some way or another. What has not been expected is that Putin is losing control of the beast he has cultivated. For a very long time now, nationalism has been a traditional characteristic of the incumbent government. Now that nationalists have become a focus of the opposition (sorry about the lack of English on this link; I had a Russian friend read me this one), the country is facing a dangerous problem. To be specific, xenophobic anti-regime activists with a persecution complex.

Why are they anti-Putin now?

It can be hard to say exactly what inspires some nationalists to change sides. Much of it can be pegged to the nature of a country in which the economy is a capitalist oligarchy, yet the government is not much more than a dominant-party dictatorship. The forces of free expression are controlled in very unique ways per situation in Russia, to the point that any nationalist can find an excuse to be angry whether the economy is high or low. If Russia is doing great, the Islamic migrants are stealing the burgeoning wealth of the people without Russians even seeing it. If Russia is suffering, it’s because the Islamic migrants stole from Russians so much the economy collapsed.

Some of the blame is squarely on Putin in this debacle. While he’s been carefully playing puppeteer with the Pinocchio that is the Russian government and society, he has forgotten to plan far enough ahead. Make no mistake, Putin makes for an excellent autocrat; there’s a reason he took top spot on Forbes' most powerful people list this year. However, he doesn’t have complete control over a country much larger than America and one that is still very populous. He must be aware by now that any force played up by dictatorship has the chance of turning upon itself. If this wasn’t the case, Saudi Arabia would have almost no terrorism problems (hint: they have many).

And lastly, new Russian anti-LGBT laws have done much to stir up tension and violence, something which is never pretty when associated with migrants from the Caucasus. These laws have encouraged infighting and the stoking of an already poor relationship with homosexuals (Russia has never mixed well with gay people, if you couldn’t guess). Instead of cementing his grip on power, these stringent anti-gay codes have given Putin widespread condemnation and thereby enforced the “persecuted” feelings of violent nationalists.

What Can Be Done?

I’m not writing a section on why oppositional Russian nationalism is a problem. If there are ever protesters ready to kill brown people just because they feel like it, that is a problem no matter what.

Stopping this where it starts is of much greater import, especially now. Unsurprisingly, much of the duty to curb xenophobia is on Putin’s hands. He’s got control now, therefore it is in his best interest and that of Russia to keep people from starting race riots in Moscow. For Putin, cutting down on anti-immigrant attitudes helps him maintain the peace and cuts short a pillar of oppositional thought, given that he will now forever have trouble monopolizing nationalism. For the nation, immigrants are a boon to the labor force and therefore the economy, especially given Russia’s low birth rate and high discrepancy in male-to-female life expectancy. Without immigrants to Russia, labor becomes expensive and scarce, and the economy drags. This is essentially why most all anti-immigrant arguments in Western countries are hogwash; without new workers to fill the gap between tons of old people and less-frequently reproducing young generations, a nation will always experience rough economic times.

Lastly, domestic and foreign opposition to Russian nationalism must be swift and heavy-handed in its approach. Anti-Putin leaders like liberal Alexei Navalny and communist Gennady Zyuganov must take the time and put in the effort to ensure that nationalism is thwarted. Nations must press Russia to stomp on those who stomp on migrants, and it can’t just be the Western world telling Russia what to do; they won’t listen. China must urge Russia to change, Belarus and Kazakhstan must urge change. And they must be willing to punish the authorities with the cutting of ties (especially economic ones) in order to make their point.

Conclusion


That is all for this week, and I hope none of you mind that I had to use a Russian link just once for this. As always, I can be reached through the comments or my email at zerospintop@live.com. My Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Google+, Tumblr, Youtube, and Reddit accounts can also be used if needed. Good night, and this is KnoFear signing off. 

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Bullshit Mountain Erupts: The Government Shutdown

Greetings all!


In a break from my experiment with poetry (which appears to be going well so far), this week I’ve decided it is rightful to address the government shutdown. Seeing as this isn’t a very common event, I’d like to present some ideas for dealing with it, alongside with a slightly new approach to how I structure these pieces. This week’s quote comes from Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest American presidents whose legacy includes emancipation of slaves and the end of the Civil War.

Introduction: What caused the shutdown?

For those not living in the United States, the news of the shutdown of the government is likely not covered highly and/or not paid attention to. Even if it is, I’ve already had to explain to several people what’s going on this week, so I feel it’s a good idea to cover what caused the shutdown, and what it means for my country.

The shutdown occurred Monday, when Republicans and Democrats in Congress could not agree on a budget for the new fiscal year (which starts October 1st in the United States). House Republicans demanded that the Affordable Care Act, nicknamed “Obamacare” for obvious reasons, be defunded in the budget. Democrats in Congress and President Obama refused to budge, thereby allowing an automatic mechanism to go off which shut down the government.

So, what does the shutdown do?

The shutdown means that all “non-essential” services of the government will now go into remission until a new budget is passed by Congress and approved the president. While this may not seem like a big deal, it means that 800,000 federal workers are furloughed, and while some attempts have been made to ensure they get paid (for instance, active duty military will still be paid, among a few others), there’s a good chance many of these people will not be reimbursed for the foolishness of those in Congress.

Even if all furloughed workers are guaranteed back pay in the end, the shutdown can and will have other negative effects on the American economy. The stock market, while not immediately in decline, will experience shortfalls as the shutdown drags along. This will become especially problematic if the shutdown lasts beyond the point at which the debt ceiling must be raised on October 17th. If that occurs, the U.S. government will default on its debt, an unprecedented event in American history, and most surely an economic disaster if it happens. At best, the government shutdown would then end due to crisis-management compromises in Congress, and the economy would bounce back in a fashion even more anemic than its current recovery. At worst, a new recession begins.

While the amount of workers being furloughed in the shutdown (representing about 0.34% of the 235 million-member American workforce) is relatively small, the distribution of furloughed workers is where harsh realities kick in. Half of all civilian Department of Defense workers will be furloughed. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, will be shuttered even though it is hurricane season and the coasts are vulnerable (FEMA is also mostly closed). OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is closed (if you’re injured on the job that just sucks for you). The EPA is essentially gone. The IRS is not collecting many taxes, thereby making it even harder to pay our bills. The WIC (food stamps for pregnant women and children) are down. The FDA cannot continue to function. All in all, the “non-essential” services of government are actually quite fundamental to our society.

Who is to blame?

First things first, I’d like to note that people saying “this is not a time to shift blame” are spectacularly wrong. We can’t fix a problem if we don’t know where it came from, and here, it is abundantly obvious where the issue originates.

The Republicans in Congress (chiefly the House of Representatives) are wholly at fault for this clusterfuck. While mainly caused by the radical right-wing of the Republican Party known as the Tea Party, mainstream Republicans and House speaker John Boehner have come together to fight against a functioning government. Jon Stewart captured it all wonderfully on the Daily Show this week; the Affordable Care Act is a law. It was passed by Congress and approved by the president. The Supreme Court affirmed it as being constitutional. Obama’s presidential re-election campaign covered it frequently, and he won by a fair margin. At this point, trying to stop Obamacare from happening is like trying to stop a rockslide with a flyswatter.

What can we do to solve this madness?

Much of the domestic debate about the shutdown has surrounded whether furloughed workers should receive back pay and which side in Congress should cave in order to pass a budget and re-open the government. I’m not even going to address the former; those people should be paid, since it’s not their fault they’re stuck at home. I’d prefer it if they were paid and worked as well; I’d like my air and water standards to stay in place even while the government is shutdown.

Instead, I’ll be looking at the latter. There should be no need to “cave” for the Democrats on this one; they are on the side of the law, and therefore have no reason to make concessions. I don’t like the Affordable Care Act, I’ll admit that; it gives far too much power and flexibility to private insurers over citizens and will ensure that prices and quality of care will never become optimal. However, I do not stand with Republicans in demanding this law be destroyed by defunding.

In order to fight the Republicans on this, we as citizens first need to know just how serious this is. Republicans are extorting the president and Congressional Democrats right now. This is not business as usual in Congress; this is not mere incompetence. This is extra-legal, and can be interpreted as a form of treason (though whether these are impeachable offenses could be debated). We must respond in kind.

That means we must go beyond what our normal reactions would be. We cannot just protest in the capital against this stupidity. We should be protesting everywhere we can; in the states these Republicans come from, the districts they were elected to represent. With a 90% incumbency rate in Congress largely due to gerrymandering and low voter turnout for Congressional elections, it is a lot to ask Americans to remember this shutdown until the next election. Even then, it’s more to ask Americans to make sure these Republicans don’t get re-elected. I’d like to believe we can do it, and I encourage us to try.

However, barring that future, if we cannot vote these people out, we must make their lives hell. I urge people under the reign of these Republicans to send countless emails, be persistent with your calls. Overwhelm their staff, send chain emails with nothing even in them if you have to. We might not be able to get rid of Republicans immediately, but we can certainly make life harder for them every step of the way. That’s exactly what I hope we do.

Conclusion


That is all for this week, and I hope I’ve provided a little insight for those out of the loop. As always, your feedback on my work is appreciated, so feel free to comment here. My online accounts on Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Google+, Steam, Tumblr, and Reddit are also open to communication, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. Thanks for reading, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Poem: Rising Son

This week’s poem was a collaborative effort between myself and a friend who wishes to remain anonymous; let’s call him Muhammad. The quote is from Eugene Debs, an influential American socialist.

Rising Son
Born from your love,
second to none.
A house untouched by hate, by anger,
a world none could disrupt.

But you didn’t  want me.

When the other parents asked “Is that your kid?”
you always confirmed.
Whether you liked it or not,
I was yours.

When I was shit at sports, and other parents cringed,
you too cringed and awkwardly smiled.
When the other kids yelled at me, and shouted “You suck!”
you just told me to look away, and we left.

When I tried to draw, and couldn’t do more than stick figures,
you seemed annoyed.
But you showed nothing, nothing but that look
of old disappointment on your graying face.

I could see it in your damned eyes; you didn’t want me.

So you gave up on me, didn’t believe in me,
couldn’t even see me.
So I promised to myself, swore on every inch of humanity I had
that I would prove you wrong.

I worked my hands to the bone,
my mind to dust.
All just so I could know
that you were wrong.

I made each grade seem easier
than the last.
Every test, every assignment, each piece of homework
was just paper to me.

And no matter how much you didn’t want me,
no matter how much you wanted not to care,
I was still your son.

Monday, September 9, 2013

Poem: Freezing Rain

This is the second poem for this week. For the first and info on this week’s quote, make sure to check out my poem, The Village.

Freezing Rain
We met at 12,

both in age and in time.

Seventh grade, science class,

period 6, just after lunch.


We were friends right away,

never a fight between us.

We enjoyed every day,

except riding that shitty bus.


You told me you had AIDS,

born with it, you said.

Took your mother’s life,

and your father, he just left.


I assured you it was fine,

that I’d never hate who you were.

You shook my hand, you said,

“It’s great to have a friend.”


Two years passed us,

flying right on by.

Each good day getting better,

each great day refusing to die.


But you got sicker,

“Just a small thing, no biggie,” you said.

The doctors disagreed,

but I trusted you over the eggheads.


But you got even worse,

stayed in that hospital for days.

I asked if you’d be okay to see the fireworks,

and you promised, “I’ll be out in a few days.”


But that longest day came,

and you got no better.

They called me to the hospital,

and told me, “Be ready.”


So I ran, through freezing rain and darkness,

to your little hospital room.

Barely alive, you grabbed my hand,

told me to listen closely.

And just before your last few moments,

reminded me who I was.


And you were gone.

Poem: The Village

I will be posting two poems tonight, this being the first one. It concerns the Syrian Civil War, and I hope you enjoy. This week’s quote comes from Noam Chomsky, a prolific American linguist and philosopher.

The Village
In a country called Syria,

            A country I called home,

We lived a quiet and peaceful life,

            On the east side of Aleppo.


My family, rooted here,

            Countless generations from past to present.

A world untouched by evil,

            An existence untouched by strife.


            And yet our world changed.


They started chanting, demanding in the street,

            “For freedom!” they shouted, and a man they intended to defeat.

Assad, the man in power, his family in control for years,

            Apparently the devil, one whom deserves no right to rule.

They say we must rebel, we must fight,

            Or we will never know a better life.

But could these men and these women

            Truly promise me a world with even less strife?

They told me I wasn't safe, that I've been hurt,

            But I've never been more secure.

They say there’s no democracy,

            But that’s not what they’re fighting for.


            And yet our world changed again.


The fighting erupted, the rockets and guns,

            No air safe to breath, no street safe to run.

The children, they cried, and the mothers, they screamed,

            Everything they've ever known being torn at the seams.


I never knew this kind of violence,

            And yet I thought I’d be okay.

But I awoke on a sweaty morning,

            Without my mother.


I decided to fight, to side with those who’d kept me safe,

            To fight for the “evil” regime, the ones who never wished to steal a life.

They were not like me, not in the slightest,

            They declared these rebels terrorist fools.

I never wanted to agree with them,

            I never intended to hurt a soul.


            And yet my world changed.