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. 

Post Free Week

Sorry folks, but there will be no new post this week. I'm taking a temporary break before addressing the big surprise topic of this month next week. This week's quote is by Mustafa Kemal, the leader of Turkey in the wake of the end of the Ottoman Empire. I like his leadership style, and the way he handled the Turkish people in the face of collapse was great. So until next week, bye!

Why Right Ain't Right: The Rise of Right-Wing Extremism

Greetings and welcome all to my blog!

I have made this post on Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. day, not because it necessarily relates to his cause, but because it is a Monday holiday. This week I tackle the growing global movement towards nationalism and right-wing extremism that the USA and other countries seem to be taking. A horrifying event to me, it is something that needs to be addressed. This week's quote is by Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Russian Bolshevik party which overthrew Tsar Nicholas the Second in the early 20th century and implemented communism. I enjoy his quotes. 

Moving on, rightist extremism is a fairly visible trend, at home and abroad. Here in America, it can be seen with the increasingly conservative Republican Party, which continually distances itself from its past leaders claiming that they were too "liberal". In the rest of the world, it can be seen in right-winged leaders taking power in many countries in order to cut spending and alleviate economic hardships. In more extreme forms, it can be in political activists or groups making very strong displays of what they believe, sometimes violently. No matter where or under what circumstances, this is a serious omen. While conservatives may not feel any problem, increasing rightism in the world is not something new. We have experienced something like this before. 

During the 1920s and 1930s, to be specific. Under eerily similar conditions, the power of the right-wing became swelled on a global scale. And don't think I'm joking here, either. The rise of these leaders and movements was primarily due to harsh economic troubles and fear for the safety of nations. Back then, military leaders and extreme rightists took power by taking advantage of this fear. Hitler, Mussolini, and eventually Franco all took hold of incredibly vulnerable countries, with devastating results. Most of us are familiar with World War 2 and the Holocaust, I presume. Fascism was the main concern; the rise of absolute autocrats in Europe and Latin America became very apparent once Germany invaded Poland. The US didn't even make real attempts towards helping the world until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. But the fact of the matter was that humanity began to realize just how dark the souls of humans become. We saw for the first time just how terrible things got when we turned our backs on each other. We saw how easily we could be manipulated, and what the consequences were when it happened. I don't consider fascism truly "defeated" until Franco's Spain was toppled at his death, although some say it ended when the war did. We thought it was all over.

It may not be. Look at what is going on. The world is experiencing an economic slump greater than it has felt in decades. Money is tight, and people are scared. They fear for their families, friends, and selves. But few fear for those other than their compatriots. Right-winged leaders are taking hold once more in Europe, and Latin America may be soon to follow. They are numerous, and control some powerful countries; Cameron in the UK, Sarkozy in France, Rajoy in Spain, Monti in Italy, Merkel in Germany, the list goes on and on. The point is that we may be headed in a direction we have already been on, one which we all know where it leads to. While fascism may be away down the road, it is not impossible. We know for certain that people have an incredible capacity for cruelty and so called "justice" in the name of their movements, like Anders Breivik of Norway, who fired on many people in the hopes of seizing right-winged power in Europe and starting a movement (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8657141/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breiviks-plan-to-seize-power-in-Europe-after-London-visit.html). It is also obvious that we are turning to the right more and more as we become more desperate for solutions. 

This is an atrocity. We can't let this happen. We know how bad things become when the extreme right takes power, and we can't allow it again. Even when it's not fascism, the right wing can cause serious problems for our country and the world. In America, Reagan ran a huge deficit and allowed lots of job losses for lower class workers due to trickle-down economics. Bush had us involved in two wars, only one of which was fully justified. Along with beginning drone strikes in other countries as well, he began making huge tax cuts, thereby defunding expensive wars. No matter what way we look at it, while life under right-wing leaders may seem fun, it isn't for everyone, and they have left behind messes time and again. Europe has it no better. Their experiences with the right are often worse, especially in the cases of Germany and Spain. Yet Europeans are once again turning to the right to solve their problems, generally by austerity measures this time around. It's not hard to see that the people have a problem with this; protesters in places like Greece sometimes turn violent in a fight against austerity. While this is a good sign, presidents and prime ministers generally hold power longer than people can keep protesting. As such, I fear for our world. 

For those of you wondering at home, the Tea Party does not have your best interests at heart (unless you are rich and/or own a corporation, of course). Global conservatives do not have the world's interests at heart. Most are focused on improving their own country at the expense of others, a problem of the past. If we wish to pull through our hard times, we must be willing to help each other out, despite our reluctance to hand over cash when we feel that we are in tough times. No matter how bad it becomes, consider this: a 10-year-old boy in Somalia has just stolen food from the black market in order to feed his many siblings. He goes without food, because he could not steal enough. He may have malaria, and most likely has no parents, or even a house. Yet you sit there reading this on your computer (or phone, or whatever). We can't forget what happens when we ignore the world to focus on ourselves. When we turn our backs, the worst is soon to follow. 

That is all for this week, and I hope I have given a posting which everyone will understand and enjoy. If you have comments, questions, etc. you can post them in the comments here. For something more private, email me at zerospintop@live.com. I also have a Facebook, a Twitter, and a Google+ account as well. This is SuperJew McLovin signing off, and Happy MLK Day! 

American Idol(ism): Our Problem With Voting

Hello again to you my readers!

I have returned after a short dry spell to readjust myself to my normal posting schedule now that holidays have ended. This week, I address voting in America, and specifically the problems we face when it comes to getting people to vote. Our voting rates hover around 50% at each presidential election, and it is generally less with congressional, state, and local elections. Obviously, this is not a good thing to keep democracy efficient. It is my belief that if a country must have democracy, it must be wholly supported in order to fill the will of its people. The same is true of any form of governance. This week's quote is by Ernesto Guevara, a revolutionary Argentine leader of the past whom I draw inspiration from. Alright, that is all on that.

Moving on, I'd like to start by validating a claim that some Republicans have said President Obama believes. While I don't know if he believes this or not, it is true. We as Americans are lazy. It is a fact. A good lot of us are obese and/or diabetic (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html), and we make laziness an acceptable societal behavior by making it "funny" on TV all the time. You know what I mean; some character will be lying on the couch, and will try to reach the remote. They end up not getting up because they're too damn lazy. Everyone laughs, etc. In my eyes, it is not funny. The fact that we make this seem to be a normal, tolerable behavior is sickening. What, you can't get up to change the freaking channel once in a while? How lazy are we? This is pathetic, especially for the nation that claims to be the world's lone superpower. How do we plan to defend ourselves if we can't even get off the couch to try? Normally, this would not be a politically important problem. However, we have allowed our laziness to spread into our effectiveness as a nation.

Compared to other effective first world democracies like Italy and Australia our voting rates are not good. Just look here (http://www.idea.int/vt/viewdata.cfm#). You can look up our voting rates, as well as voting rates in all other countries that vote. In presidential elections, we aren't absolutely terrible. We are terrible when it comes to congressional elections. We rarely make it to the halfway margin. Australia rarely falls below the 90% margin. This isn't good. A cornerstone of the democracy Americans praise is voting. In order for our system to work, we all must have input to ensure the full will of the people is heard. However, this is not what is happening. It appears that our voting rates are comparatively low, sometimes only a little and sometimes drastically. This causes wide ramifications for how our government is run for us.

When we vote, we give a mandate to those taking office. This mandate describes that the officials being voted in will do as the people wish, and will serve his/her people as they served him/her into office. It is a good thing most of the time. If enough people vote for a certain candidate that means that s/he has the right to govern and has been chosen by true consensus. But this is the problem we get; not enough people vote. When this happens the candidates receive weak mandates, meaning they didn't receive much of a call to rule. Therefore, their right to do so can easily be called into question. It can also lead to illegal rule, where a candidate is voted in solely because the voter turnout was heavily swayed to one side while the other side was too lazy to get out and vote. While we don't have the problem of fraudulent elections, if voting rates continue dropping we just might. We also don't have a problem with voter fraud inherently, although it could be possible in the future.

Before I keep going, I'd like to address our so-called voter fraud troubles. Some of you may recently have been hearing about voter ID laws passed in many states. Most are nonsensical to some degree. Some have been challenged in court. All because conservatives cry out that we have rampant voter fraud. Really? Voter fraud? You think we are collectively active enough to illegally vote rather than do it legally? What could make anyone think we would do that, lazy as we are? Also, being a citizen who is of voting age should be all that is required to vote. If you are a citizen, you are inherently American, and part of that is voting. Case closed. And when states pass voter ID laws, it is ridiculous. The party that claims to love the constitution is doing what it can to prevent Americans from taking part in our government. They are restricting democracy they claim to hold on to with their dying breaths. This is a serious fault. We cannot expect to believe that we have voter fraud problems; we are not the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and we are not Burma. We are the United States of America. No one is stuffing ballot boxes that easily, trust me.

Anyway, we need to find out why we are so lazy and correct it. I'm sure our collective fatness is probably responsible to some small degree. But it is far more than that, I assure you. It is not normal for a country's people to have more voter turnout for American Idol than the presidential election. I personally believe that we are simply lazy as an inherent trait of Americans. Therefore, I believe we must provide some form of incentive for voting. Perhaps we can go the way of Australia and impose a fine for not voting. They do have some pretty high voter turnout rates, after all. I think this a fair solution to our problems. However, some people would claim this is unconstitutional and that it is in contrast with democracy. Good enough argument, I suppose. If so, another solution is necessary. If anyone here has taken U.S. history in ninth grade, you'll remember the party machines of the early 1900's. These party machines were strongly partisan groups that would provide jobs to people in exchange for votes. While this was a heavy indicator of corrupt democracy, it was efficient at bringing out voters. We need something similar but nonpartisan today. While I don't suggest hiring common folk in exchange for the promise of voting, there must be something that makes us as Americans want to participate in democracy. Maybe it could be a tax incentive, or some form of salary bonus that would come with all the more voting people do. While this problem is hard to tackle with positive incentives, it is possible. And perhaps if this problem is solved, our system will be a better representation of America as a whole.

Well, that is all for this week, and if anyone would like to post comments/questions/criticisms/praise you can do so in the comments section here. My friend Danyal Ahmad is president of the nonprofit corporation which is currently in the process of applying for a 501(c)(3), the Citizen Empowerment Foundation, to ameliorate our problems with voting, so I'm glad some of us are making progress, and if anyone else would like to get in on that then do so. If you would prefer somewhere else, I also have a Facebook and a twitter, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.