Orwell Was Right: The NSA Spying Program

Greetings all!

This is the second part of my promised political work this week, this time focusing more on American politics rather than an international issue. Tonight, I zero in on a massive scandal for the current government in the United States, specifically the NSA spying program.

For those unaware, the National Security Administration has been secretly listening in on millions of Americans’ phone calls, and has been accessing the online activities and records of Americans as well. This apparently goes fairly far back, as revealed by leaker and former CIA employee Edward Snowden. The intelligence community, from the FBI to the Department of Homeland Security, has been pushing for these measures ever since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The extensive spying program has been committed through the use of PRISM, and has been flawlessly passed by the legislative and executive branches.

While many groups including libertarians and tech giants like Reddit alike oppose this spying program, it has received clear support from Congress and the presidency (at most times), forcing both presidents Bush and Obama along with many members of Congress to defend their legitimacy. The most common argument made can be summed up in the words of Senator Lindsey Graham, who has claimed that as long as we have nothing to hide, we should have nothing to reasonably fear.

This argument, while sound on the surface (for a moron), is so flawed in its tenets that it makes me fear Graham even more than the NSA. For a point of reference, I’ll be referring to the novel 1984 by George Orwell, a prominent British author and socialist. In said book, the government maintains a constantly-monitoring state apparatus in order to assure absolute peace (read: complacence) among the populace it rules over. All aspects of society are penetrated by the authority of Big Brother, the man in charge sometimes seen as more of a force than a person. That force being, of course, fear. Fear of the common citizen which can instill thoughts of change in his brothers and sisters, fear which keeps freedom and knowledge out of the hands of everyone. Fear, being the only reason I started writing in this capacity in the first place.

How Graham and other members of Congress see no connection between the NSA and 1984 is baffling. These people claim to be the bastions of the American constitution, and yet it seems most of them are unfamiliar with the 4^th Amendment, which guarantees safety from unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. This also applies to the states, as required by the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment. They seem to forget the unalienable right to privacy of American citizens, guaranteed by several court cases throughout our history. From Katz v. United States to Kyllo v. United States, our judiciary and legal system has guaranteed a reasonable right to privacy on the part of all Americans.

But let’s take the time to address these silly arguments. Let’s say that you have absolutely nothing to hide on your computer or phone records. You commit no illegal activities online; you pirate no music or other legal property, you never access illegal pornography, etc. You are an exemplary American, one who follows all laws to the dot. You should still be angry at having your privacy violated. Not because you are afraid of what might be found, but because you are afraid it is happening in the first place. Your basic constitutional and intrinsic rights are being infringed unlawfully, and no person should have to undergo such treatment without good reason.

But what of terrorists and other criminals, the police-state-backers cry? How else are we to catch these threats to our civil society? While how we approach the War on Terror is an honest debate we can have, monitoring the internet and phone records is a failed method of doing so. If we need NSA spying to stop events like 9/11, why didn't we stop it? If we need NSA spying to stop horrors like the Boston Marathon Bombing, why didn't we stop it? If NSA spying is so necessary, why is it so crappy at doing what it has been sent out to do in the first place? The simple answer to this question is because it cannot prevent these attacks on America. We often claim that terrorists hate us because of our freedoms; we cannot defend ourselves from them by taking away the freedoms we claim to love.

So, what do we do now? How can we restore our freedoms, bring back the great democracy we once were in the past? Clearly, one of the things we can do immediately is dissolve the NSA and destroy PRISM. Not only do the actions of the NSA call into question how our government treats and views its own citizens, it calls into question how willing we are to protect the democracy our founders fought and died to bring forth. The very thought that we are all being watched should make us sick and angry beyond belief. We must also pardon Snowden, the hero who brought these revelations to light. Ultimately, though, this is not enough. It should be clear to us by now that the War on Terror has done little to root out terrorism in the world. Instead, the War on Terror has created the world’s creepiest security apparatus, a branching effort to extend control over America and, eventually, the world. This seething mass of profit, fear, and weaponry sprouts forth from our government through our own ignorance and laziness. There is something we can do: destroy the DHS. While it is awkward to be in agreement with conservatives for me, I agree that we must attack our problems at their root. We do not need a whole portion of the executive branch to protect ourselves, especially when the DHS is making us feel less secure all on its own.

That’s all for tonight, and I hope everyone will forcefully remind our representatives of the freedoms we deserve as I have. Your feedback in comments is encouraged, and I can be reached through my email at zerospintop@live.com, or my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, DeviantArt, Tumblr, Steam, and Reddit accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Kemalism In Crisis: The Turkish Protest Movement

Greetings all!

This post comes amid tense events both at home and abroad, and to make up for taking time to allow these events to develop, I plan to write two pieces for this week instead of just one. Today, I shall cover the current protests and social movement which has arisen in Turkey. In light of these protests, this week’s quote comes from Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

These growing protests in Turkey are a fairly new development, only showing after intense police response to a sit-in against reconstruction in Taksim Square. Originally, the sit-in was intended to shine a light on opposition to redevelopment plans for the area which involved taking away local greenery in favor of new industrialization and buildings. Almost immediately, the Turkish authorities sanctioned the use of tear gas, water cannons, and extensive violence against the participants. This quickly mushroomed into large anti-government action by thousands of civilians, continuing even now. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has responded with a sneer, declaring protesters to be violent looters that ally themselves with terrorists.

On the first day of protests, I had thought little of the possible consequences presented for Turkey. I assumed these protests were similar to those which have plagued European nations for years, like those which have occurred in France, the U.K., Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece. To me, I thought that this would boil down to dissatisfaction with the lack of progress through capitalism, alongside social upheaval that tends to tag along. The only thing I thought strange of these protests was that Turkey had experienced economic prosperity for the most part for years. Weird, perhaps, but I welcomed such events nonetheless.

Needless to say, I received quite a surprise to learn that this movement had evolved to a considerable level, where the protests represent entirely unique concerns not characteristic of a European post-industrial nation. Instead, Turkish protesters face much more immediate and dangerous problems which threaten the very institutions of a nation fought so stridently for in the past. This uprising has two significant faces: secularism vs. Islamism and democracy vs. authoritarianism.

While not the driving facet of the current social upheaval in Turkey, religious issues in Turkey are a topic worth discussion. We must remember that the modern Turkish state was founded by a man who considered religion a barrier to social progress; indeed, Kemalism and the CHP (the opposition Kemalist political party) espouse a secular public sphere. For nearly the entirety of Turkey’s current existence, it was a secular state in which the military readily intervened to prevent religious influence on government. This happened on multiple occasions, with mostly successful though at times questionable results.

However, under Erdogan political Islamism has gained ground in Turkey. A gradual Islamization of Turkish institutions has taken place, supported by the rural Muslims that Turkey hosts in its society. And yet, public support for religious dominance is significantly divided in Turkey, with urban citizens being significantly less religious than those living in smaller areas. This is mostly due to unequal development of Turkey, in that Turkey is a nation with large income inequality that drives strong growth in cities while leaving less populated areas behind. As a result, these areas do not move forward socially either, leaving the nascent local religion (in this case Islam) as a driving force. Previously, these areas were held as the best places for progress on fronts such as education and poverty relief during secular rule. But under Erdogan, the public sphere has shifted to suiting this backwards view of society, thereby imposing new morals on those that chose to reject them and expected support from their government. By flirting with ideas such as bans on alcohol, Erdogan has created a tense atmosphere in which his morals constrict the citizenry, whereas secular morals never truly restrict the private practice of religion. And as Islamism becomes accepted as a legal framework for disputes in Turkey, the dissatisfaction with oppression of the secular citizenry will only grow.

The second face of the Turkish protests is much more prominent: that of true democracy. This is largely the underlying force for those fighting the Turkish government at the moment. For Turkish citizens, democracy is a carefully crafted and well-protected institution worth keeping around; military dictatorship is a frequent casualty should democracy come into question. Instead, it is preferable that Turkey maintains a democratic tradition and continues to elect its leaders instead of having the military orchestrate government as it sees fit. And while Erdogan has been elected to government, elections are not the only defining aspects of democracy. Indeed, Turkey is not entirely free; it has imprisoned many journalists, and Turkish media is effectively controlled by the state. Peaceful opposition is not a complete right in Turkish society now, and this is why those in Turkey feel the need to fight back. Authoritarianism is wrong for them, just as it should be.

In light of this, I hope protests continue. I hope they grow in strength, and that their righteousness is recognized. I wish to see Turkey return to its secular roots, and for Turkish society to prosper in the modern world without turning to autocracy. I wish to see Erdogan fall out of power, even if that must mean military intervention to see it happen.

That is all for tonight, and I hope I've provided a good read for all. As always, your feedback is encouraged through comments, my email at zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Steam, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and Reddit accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Islam Is Not Peaceful (But Neither Is Anyone Else)

Greetings all!

This piece comes after a brief break I took in order to work out the final weeks of my high school education. Now that it has been concluded, I likely won’t be taking such leaves of absence for a while now. Beyond that, I've decided to make Islam (and religion in general) a topic this week due to some events as of late which convinced me to tear open the wounds anew. The events I speak of range from the beheading of a British soldier to the stabbing of a French soldier. While the latter has not been confirmed as being in the name of Islam, the events surrounding it would suggest so. This is in contrast to the former, where Islamic extremism has been identified as the clear cause. And while I’d love to go on about how Islam is not the religion of peace its followers claim it to be, neither is any religion, and to go on about one necessitates my action on all others. This week’s quote comes from Olof Palme, an influential Swedish Prime Minister of the past whom I hold the utmost respect and admiration for.

I’d like to note that, while fundamentalist Islam was clearly the inspiration for the attack on the British soldier, there are other factors at play we should not ignore. Ultimately, all conflict between people is class conflict, and minority groups like Muslims and Afro-European British citizens are subjected to societal repression. Like in much of Europe, British economic and societal structures have a de facto trend to benefit the Anglican White community. While the British welfare state helps to neutralize factors that exacerbate differences between groups in the U.K., the system is not so expansive or effective to negate such differences. This is especially true in light of austerity in the U.K., a failed policy. However, British austerity and economic recession has also highlighted ethnic and social tensions which erupted into violent riots in 2011. It should be very obvious that poverty and systematic poor treatment of minorities is at play here.

But at the center of all this is Islam. It seems these days that radical Islam is blamed for quite a bit of the violence in the modern world, regardless of whether that violence occurs in a first-world European capital or in the rural communities of a third-world Middle Eastern nation. In truth, radical Islamic violence is not a huge problem in richer, secularized countries. Many conservatives in the U.S. Congress claim that it is, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of terrorist attacks in America are not inspired by Islamism. Most acts of terror are either committed by one side of the political spectrum or another, or are acts of terrorism with no clear political or religious role. In fact, religious terrorism in America is mostly dominated by groups that are not Islamic.

Instead, Islamic terrorism is a much larger problem for those nations which host majority-Islamic populations and have at least some semblance of Islamic influence in the civil structure. For example, Islamic terrorism is a much more prominent issue in Saudi Arabia, where the constitution is defined as being the Qur’an itself. Saudi Arabia is possibly the single most oppressively Islamic nation on Earth, and yet terrorism is a greater threat there than where most people complaining about Islamic terrorism are (Europe and the U.S.).

How you read the text of the Qur’an does not actually have to be held as a large piece of my debate; whether you view the original writings of Muhammad as peaceful or violent is up to you. Instead, what matters is the effect said writing has on modern society and how humans interact with each other. It is frequently held that Islam is a “religion of peace” by its adherents. These Muslims often try to explain Islamic law and theory in the most muted way possible, babying those who condemn Islam along to a point where they hope tolerance is possible. One of the most noted points brought up by Islamic apologists is that the term “jihad” does not mean war. This is true; jihad means struggle, and this can be much more broadly applied than one would think. Hell, studying hard in order to pass a test can be considered jihad.

However, jihad has been extended to benefit those that commit acts of religious war against Western and non-Islamic or secular society. Even back in WWI, the Ottoman Empire declared jihad against its enemies in order to inspire Muslim fighters towards victory. Jihad continued to be used for political interests throughout the 20^th century; the 1979 Iranian Revolution was inspired by radical Islam. The Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet War in the 1980s had declared a jihad against communist and secular forces in the country. The followers of Osama Bin Laden used jihad as an excuse to perform countless bombings in areas they considered to be not Islamic enough. At this point in history, jihad is now tied into horrid acts of violence, and the chances of it separating are little. As it should be.

To explain, let me say that an idea, if absolutely noble in its roots is perverted and corrupted in practice, should not be tossed out entirely. Secular rule in Afghanistan was certainly plagued by such issues in the brief time it was allowed power, but that does not mean the idea should be thrown away. However, if the idea is not pure in its roots, it should be removed. Jihad is not pure; while the strict translation from Arabic means struggle, the Qur’an is clear in its interpretation of jihad. Physical jihad, the highest level of jihad, guarantees those who practice it paradise, as long as that physical jihad is justified righteously. We can argue all we like about what the original intention of that justification was, but the reality of the situation is that jihad is frequently used as a means of justifying incredible violence. As such, Islam is no religion of peace.

At the same time, other religions are not absent of guilt. Christianity is no religion of peace. Au contraire, Christianity and the divinity of Jesus have been used to excuse countless generations of murderers and oppressors. Nearly three centuries of war known as the Crusades occurred blatantly to reclaim the holy land for Christianity. Colonizers of the new world and Africa used Christianity to change local populations to suit their own needs, eventually ingraining a foreign way of life into these people. The Dark Ages were characterized by oppression of progress in Europe by the Christian authorities. Even today, evangelical Christianity is used to overpower populations of the United States for profit and influence.

Judaism is not clean, despite what many of my people would like to suggest. While Jews don’t have nearly the same kind of international influence, power, or arrogance of Christians or Muslims, Jews very much do as they please in Israel. Israel is defined in its Basic Law as a “Jewish state,” ignoring the fact that Israel has Arab Muslims, Christians, and secular citizens which such a state would rightfully exclude. For much of its history, Israel has conscripted citizens into the army, but Haredi Jews were allowed exclusion from such service until recently (a subject of contentious debate). The far-right Israeli Likud party supports settlements of Palestinian lands, despite the obvious religious and social conflicts such actions ignite.

Other religions in the world are just as guilty as the Abrahamic faiths. The Hindu class structure has oppressed millions of Indians over decades of improvement and progress in Indian society. Hindu extremists have committed violence against minority religions like Christianity and Islam in India; indeed, it was a Hindu extremist that murdered Mohandas Gandhi himself. While even some atheists give Buddhism slack, Buddhist monks have played a large role in anti-Muslim violence in Burma. Animist structures in central Africa have long played a role in the dramatically backward patriarchy there.

My point is that, while Islam is most certainly not a peaceful religion, no religion is. All religions, at some point or other, have been used for violence. All religions have been used to oppress others. All religions have been used to confirm backwards and/or unequal societal structures. No religion is innocent. And so, to say that Islam is a violent religion, I must qualify my statement by saying that all religions are violent. And therefore, all religions contribute to the destruction of the world. All religions make the world less safe and less tolerant. And lastly, the world will not be safe and peaceful until all religions bite the dust.

That’s all for this week, and I hope I've got enough sources for the point I've been making. Your feedback is encouraged through the comments and, barring that, my email at zerospintop@live.com. As always, I can be reached through Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Steam, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and Reddit as well. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

A Generation, Lost: Modern Pakistan

Greetings all!

While this post comes amid election season in several nations such as Bulgaria, I felt it necessary to take a closer look at Pakistan this time. My reasoning for this is because Pakistan is key to combating the power of the Taliban, especially in relation to Afghan stability and progress. However, I also wish to address the outcome of Pakistani elections because Pakistan seems to have lost an entire way of life over these last few decades. This week’s quote comes from the former prime minister of Pakistan, now deceased, Benazir Bhutto. I consider her to probably be the only respectable Pakistani leader since Muhammad Ali Jinnah, honestly, so I figured her voice in this would be well-placed.

I define Pakistan as lost due to the way the nation’s governance has been dominated over the years. For the most part, there have been two major political forces in Pakistan; conservative parties, led by people such as Nawaz Sharif, and the military/intelligence structure. All the while Pakistan has been engulfed in attempts to spread influence to Afghanistan by corrupt leaders while pointless wars with India have been fought. Oh, how the wars are so pointless by now. I won’t get much into it, but I have trouble seeing why either Pakistan or India wants Kashmir so badly. I suppose I understand the whole territorial claim, but it’s not like Kashmir is particularly great land to have anyway.

At the same time, Pakistan has been held back oh so strongly by religious fervor and a strange yet ardent nationalism propagated by essentially all of its modern leaders. Sharif was one of those leaders; in the hope of establishing a democracy with a religious conservative society, he Islamized much of Pakistan. Sharif made the Qur'an the law of the land in Pakistan, nearly setting Pakistan on the same levels of legalized theocracy as Saudi Arabia. Sharif also embedded capitalist forces in Pakistan through deregulation efforts and other liberalizing effects on Pakistan’s economy. While positive then, just like all other economic liberalizations it strengthened the income gap in Pakistan and entrenched the power money holds in politics there.

Pakistan’s military has largely acted in the belief that it was pursuing what was in the best interest of Pakistan. This is why the military has led so many coups in Pakistan; the ISI and other intelligence units believed that Pakistani sovereignty was at stake, and that democracy would hinder the process of dealing with large issues. However, in doing so the Pakistani military removed any possible democratic precedent. At present, it is historic for one democratic regime to hand power to another in Pakistan. That should give you an idea of how often the military has involved itself, and why it is likely too much by now.

And yet through all the suffering, all the strife, Pakistan had no hope in this election. There were but four major options this time, all just as problematic as the next. First and foremost was Nawaz Sharif. He represents the most conservative forces in Pakistan, and a return to a turbulent nuclear past which cannot possibly bring change to a nation struggling with power shortages and widespread underemployment. We know this to be self-evident: a theocracy will not save Pakistan. Religion can no longer be a savior in the Middle East.

The second fairly popular option was Imran Khan, whose Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Party represented a youthful, anti-corruption message to the nation. And while Khan was noble in his cause, much of his popularity was driven by the fact that he was simply a former celebrity leading an anti-establishment message, much like Beppe Grillo in Italy. Khan had no real plan for Pakistan, although the Taliban didn't seem to object to him, giving you a clue to how socially conservative he is. And of course, that is exactly what Pakistan must avoid these days.

The last democratic option was the Pakistan People’s Party, led under a banner by Asif Ali Zardari and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, respectively the current Pakistani president and his son, whom holds onto the legacy of Benazir Bhutto. Unfortunately, like most of the PPP, the elder Zardari is a man accused of corruption throughout his term, and it’s become quite certain as of late that the accusations are true. While the main messages of the PPP are easily the best for Pakistan, those leading the party are not. Mired by cynicism and corruption, much of the leadership of Pakistan’s largest progressive party is not fit to rule a new democratic Pakistan. The younger Zardari would have made for the ideal candidate, one with the message but not the corruption, but alas he is too young.

The final option was, of course, the military option. But by now, we know why such an option has already been exhausted to the point that enacting it would do nothing but harm Pakistan.

Unlike most fully-industrialized nations, Pakistan’s older generation is not one that will give power up as time passes to a newer folk that will move the nation forward. In nations across the Western world, the culture will change and so too will the society, leading to a different era in governance. But in the packed streets of Islamabad, nothing will change until that older generation dies or becomes incompetent. The hold of conservatism, Islamism, and militarism in Pakistan are all brought forth by those born in it, and all these things will likely die with them. Let’s hope it comes soon, for the sake of all Pakistanis.

That is all for this week, and I hope I've given good reasoning for my claims. As always, your feedback in the comments is appreciated. Outside the comments, I am still available for contact at my email of zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Steam, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and Reddit accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

We Are Failing: The Need to Rise Up

Greetings all!

This post comes after a self-imposed hiatus in order to assist in with work that needed to be done on DeviantArt. Now that that is over, I have returned to write anew. Much has occurred in the time that I was on break; the Boston marathon became the epicenter of a violent bombing, gun control debate flopped in the American senate, and Rhode Island, along with Uruguay, New Zealand, and France, passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage (and in some cases adoption). And while I do feel a need to write scathing remarks about our reaction to the aforementioned bombing, that will have to come later. I feel there is something greater to be addressed. While some parts of the world have made progress as of late, there is a certain horrifying trend of failure I’m seeing as well. It’s something that came together for me today, when it was announced that the Barisan National Coalition won elections in Malaysia. This week’s quote comes from Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the opposition in Malaysia.

The world is not failing its people entirely. There are little bright spots along the way, and they happen when we least expect them. While gun control measures failed in the senate, a huge majority of Americans still support the measures proposed. And while same-sex marriage is not yet the law of the land, polls suggest that a majority of Americans support marriage equality as well. As far as I can tell, many of us around the world have what is right in our hearts.

But at the same time, these recent weeks have confirmed to me just how strong our foes are. Protection laws for Monsanto, written by Monsanto, have been passed. Egyptian Islamic law has been tightening as of late, with an amount of public support that should frighten any rational person. Hugo Chavez has died, and while Nicolas Maduro represents a good way to continue his legacy Venezuela is running out of good ways to keep progress coming. North Korea remains a belligerent state that betrays its own ideals, and it does not appear as though it will become truly free anytime soon. And despite proof that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not win the Iranian elections of 2009, Iran is still possibly one of the most backward, terrifying places on the planet.

The reason the Malaysian elections struck me so is because it fomented in my mind just how endemic reactionary and bourgeois forces are in our world. It has solidified in my mind not just how powerful conservative forces are within the hearts and minds of our people; conservative forces are part of culture.

This is best exemplified by the U.K. at the moment. As of late, the U.K. Independence Party has won seats in local elections. Unfortunately, this is one of the single worst things I can imagine for the United Kingdom. Hell, I’d rather tolerate Tories than the UKIP.

The UKIP has risen to prominence in the wake of a harsh economy in the U.K. As we all know, in times of extreme or prolonged hardship the masses of any nation become more politically polarized as discontent with the political establishment grows. This is an expected occurrence, no matter what the location is. This is why the Syrian opposition is increasingly dominated by Islamists; dissatisfaction with the lack of victories, people are turning to those more confident in their ideologies to act. Unfortunately, this situation always increases the risks present in any country.

Take, say, the Weimar Republic, the government of Germany between the two World Wars. At the beginning, the Weimar Republic made a good showing of Germany and performed leaps and bounds for a good part of the 1920s. But by the 1930s, serious economic depression strongly polarized the electorate, leaving the government split between communists and Nazis. This lead to inaction on the part of the government, eventually leaving Germany to hand over executive power to Hitler. We all know what horrors followed.

The UKIP represents a similar threat. The United Kingdom, however, is not now split between the radical left and right, nor does it look like it will be in the near future. The strongest left-wing party in the U.K. is the Labour Party, and at best it is centre-left and represents social democratic ideals which won’t compete with the vivacity of the UKIP. This is especially true in light of the fact that Labour is not now a majority party, and it likely will not become one. The risks involved with the UKIP do not involve there being a simple chance that a radical side of politics will take over. The UKIP may take power in Britain without opposition, solidifying a racist political party that will surely drive one of the world’s oldest nations into the dumps if given the chance. The war clouds hang over Europe with the arrival of the UKIP; my fear is growing for our world.

Greece suffers a similar situation at the moment. While the left-winged Syriza coalition holds the will of a good portion of the people, the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn Party has gained increasing popularity as well. This is more in line with traditional dissatisfaction with government; the population is split, and there is a risk that one of the two radical sides will take power and enforce its will on the country. At least in Greece the more rational left has a chance; not so for the U.K.

The Malaysian election proved to me that not only will conservative forces do anything to keep power, but that in some cases they don’t have a strident need to do so on their own. I don’t doubt that the BN coalition rigged the elections at least a little bit; that’s pretty much a given in a nation where said political grouping has held power literally since independence. However, I am thoroughly convinced that enough people genuinely believe in conservative forces in Malaysia enough to vote for them. We must not allow this to happen; we must be aware, and we must fight. We need numbers to win the world; that is where our power comes from. Never forget that.

That is all for this week, and I hope I've provided a well-backed argument. As always, I can be reached by comments here, or through my email at zerospintop@live.com. My accounts on Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Steam, Tumblr, and Reddit can also be reached if necessary. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

The Worst: Private Prisons In America

Greetings all!

This post comes shortly after the death of Margaret Thatcher, the conservative leader of the United Kingdom during the 1980s. Her rule was marked by a dissolution of British labor protections in favor of privatization and large capitalist-driven growth. By the end of her rule, stagnation and civil unrest marked her leadership, although she remains a significant figure in British politics to this day. And while my fellows and I may feel no remorse for our criticism of her, I do not rejoice in death. Even though I’d love to embark on a full critique of Thatcherism, tonight I have reserved a piece which I consider one of my best among my body of work here. Tonight, I write on private prisons, and how the very nature of these institutions is wrong and they should be abolished. This week’s quote is from David Hopper, general secretary of the Durham Miner’s Association and a critic of Thatcher whom I felt deserved a place for his voice.

Private prison operation is a mostly new phenomenon in the United States. Like many other things wrong with America today, private prisons began their expansion mostly during the 1980s. This was due to the effects of the War on Drugs, in which our incarceration rates began to move up on the scale to the point now where we have the world's largest prison population. Due to increased arrests of a disproportionate amount of racial minorities on minor drug-related offenses, towns and cities suddenly had far more prisoners than public institutions were ready to hold. This was a significant issue because drawing up money to build new prisons was difficult seeing as Reagan had transferred much public money away in order to “grow” the private sector. And so, private prisons stepped in, eventually becoming major corporations such as the Corrections Corporation of America.

I’ll take the liberty of linking my main source for criticism of private prisons right now, this lengthy article from PRWatch. My main, to put it lightly, quip with private prisons is their legality within the framework of our Constitution. However, they also exhibit several other areas where they fall short of reasoning for existence. First and foremost, private prisons are often accused of prisoner abuse by guards and other forms of poor treatment that is not seen as frequently in public prisons. Not only are we taking away the freedoms of many people at a time with private prisons, but we also violate their freedoms at the same time. This is increasingly hypocritical when you realize just how many prisoners are put away for minor drug-related crimes, such as marijuana possession. Whether you believe marijuana should be legal or not, you cannot dispute that people should be treated as people and not scum, even when in prison. If doing that worked to improve societies, we would not have issues integrating ex-cons back into society. Norway has easily proven that rehabilitation is a far superior method towards that goal.

Private prisons, or rather the companies that run them, have also been caught in conflicts of interest. They often hold some form of murky, questionable political power or influence in the places they operate most freely, like in the Arizona town referenced in the PRWatch article. And so just like banks, the abuse public services and funds to fuel themselves while also protecting themselves from the public. If this doesn't sound like a corporatist government, I don’t know what does.

One of the worst parts of private prisons is the very notion that they exist. Think about it in terms of a capitalist market. In capitalism, all business is driven by the profit motive; businesses want to make money somehow. The goal of prisons is to keep prisoners in an isolated location and to ready them for a return to society, although rather in America their goal is to punish offenders of the law. Private prisons therefore earn a profit per each prisoner they hold. This is horrifying. These private prisons are encouraged by our capitalist model to arrest more people and keep them in prison for longer periods of time while using as little money as possible to keep them alive in order to make money. This is perhaps the only thing more abhorrent about the state of our economic model than the power which large banks hold over us.

In closing, I’d like to bring up the fact that, in essence, private prisons are unconstitutional. But why, you ask? There is nothing saying that the state must provide for all prisons, after all. While true, there is an amendment to the constitution which effectively outlaws the activity of private prisons. I refer to the 13^th Amendment, which outlawed the practice of slavery in America. We have people being placed in poor conditions and then forced to work (prison labor) while those keeping them imprisoned (guards and corporate owners) make a profit. To simplify that, unpaid and abused prisoners are being forced to work so owners can make a profit. This, my friends, is slavery, clear as can be. Therefore, any and all private prisons exist in blatant illegal opposition to the 13^th Amendment, and should be dissolved immediately.

That is all for this week, and I think I've proven my point well. As always, I encourage feedback through the comments, my email at zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Twitter, Steam, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and Reddit accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Non-Negotiable: The Rights of Unions and Workers

Greetings all!

This post comes as March draws to a close and my week of extra writing comes to its end. After this, my usual schedule resumes its usual pace. I’d like to wish all Christians a late but happy Easter. Instead of celebrating said holiday, I stood in remembrance of Cesar Chavez, whose birthday was yesterday. He was a perennial leader for rural workers’ and unions’ rights, and his struggle earned him state holidays in California, Colorado, and Texas, as well as earning him a place as this week’s quote. In light of his legacy, tonight I write on the value of unions and the value of workers.

Unions have come under fire for years now, becoming an essential target of conservatives in the crusade to save the economy in their way. Indeed, union membership has declined lately, especially in states like Wisconsin and Indiana where Republican leadership has reduced the power and significance of unions. This is not a new occurrence in America; union membership has, as an overall percentage of population, been dropping since the 1950s when it hit a high of about 35%. Union rights and influence in American economics and politics have been dropping as well.

This is not a solely American problem, either. While unions in Europe have maintained a greater dominance and presence, they have been on the wane since the great liberalization of European economies began in the 1980s. Beginning with Margaret Thatcher and ending with Mikhail Gorbachev, much of Europe used this decade to inject fresh capitalism into the beginnings of what would become the European Union.

During the 1990s, most of the unions in Asia that did have power lost most of it. Central Asian republics formerly under the rule of the Soviet Union adapted capitalist “shock therapy” similar to what was prescribed for Russia during said decade, resulting in severe economic decline alongside worker’s rights which were torn asunder. Middle Eastern dictatorships, republics, and kingdoms did not have much protection for unions and most never did. The Indian license raj was removed after 1991, and while it transformed the Indian economy it also introduced massive corruption and made already harsh poverty endemic to many Indians. Many East Asian economies liberalized in the 1990s especially in light of the financial crisis, notably China which pursued state capitalist reforms.

Much of South America and Africa had no history of union presence or true worker’s rights. Most of South America had been plagued by military governments and other forms of dictatorship, and only now are they becoming truly modern economies where unionization is possible and necessary. Most of Africa is the same; the lack of true industrial bases and the severe exploitation forced upon Africans by colonial empires made independence a tough and often violent process where unions were much less of a problem than wars and suffering were.

However, no person should cry out victory or praise now that unions have diminished. Instead, we should be reminded of what good a strong, collective workforce can do. We should be reminded that workers do deserve the same rights and privileges as do their bosses, no matter what the economic situation.

Unions are certainly an integral part of any trillion-dollar class economy such as our own in America. For my example as to why, let’s begin across the pond in Europe as I do so frequently. While union membership in Europe has been dropping overall for many years now, most European nations have a labor force which is more unionized than our own. Some nations there have unionization rates higher than 50%, a large difference considering our own rate is only just above the French rate of 8%. If the conservative claim that unions hold back economic growth and prosperity were true, then those nations with the highest unionization would also have low economic growth each year. Instead, countries like Norway (where unionization is one of the largest in the world) had their GDP grow at a rate faster than our own. Meanwhile, Spain has pursued strict austerity measures including cutbacks on union strength, and the Spanish economy has been in deep recession for an uncomfortably long time now.

We don’t have to look outside America for examples of the failure of union-busting, either. Just look to a state like, say, Wisconsin. Tea Party hero and Governor Scott Walker made significant budget cuts to his state along with tax cuts, while also becoming a conservative icon by winning a recall election aimed to remove him for his actions against public employees and unions. But while Wisconsin started 2010 as 11^th in job creation, in Walker’s tenure it has fallen to 44^th in job creation. Compare that position to states with the highest rates of job creation such as New York or California. Not coincidentally, neither of these states has weakened its unions or workers’ rights in recent years.

That is all for tonight, and I hope I've provided enough information to support my ideas. I encourage feedback through the comments here, or at my email of zerospintop@live.com. You can also contact me through Facebook, Twitter, Google+, DeviantArt, Steam, Tumblr, and Reddit. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.