In the counter-intuitive world of policy-making if it isn't a crisis (real or perceived) nothing will change and if you want anything to change you must turn it into a crisis.

Labor Crisis (and a Solution)

Automation, although not the apocalyptic ending to the work force that was once predicted, has nonetheless still eliminated more jobs than it has generated. The current United States unemployment rate is over 7% in some states and far worse for many smaller locations and demographics; teen-agers looking for summer work are out at 19% unemployment. Regardless of whatever the numbers look like they always understate the demand because those who've tried and given up are not shown as are those who would like to have a job but don't, add their name to the state unemployment department's list; yeah I wonder why when they are just SO effective and getting people jobs!?

When as many people need work as they do today and try but cannot get any, that is a crisis. Today's labor crisis is one being desperately downplayed and ignored by government (or aggravated by state budget cuts) because it makes them look bad and they really don't have any plans or ideas on how to solve it besides wait and hope it gets better fast. America needs another economic solution builder like John Maynard Keynes and let's hope this time we can do it without another World War or Great Depression before government policy makers have enough motivation to do something about unemployment and a dying economy. I'm no Keynes but I can give it a start and act as a catalyst letting others enhance and implement these core ideas on labor and society.

During the Great Depression President Roosevelt adopted Keynes' idea that all you had to do to revive a sagging economy was get people back to work and the best way to do that was deficit spend during recession and then cover that debt with the higher tax revenue of a booming economy afterwards. The money was used to pay people to work and this did help - it gave people something to do so they didn't revolt and made the country a better place at the same time. Roosevelt used massive public works projects with all kinds of acronym names like CCC or WPA, etc. to give people jobs. The success of those programs is still the stuff of legend today even though it conveniently ignores the fact that Hitler's Third Reich pioneered the idea of massive public works projects to claw a nation out of deep depression. But hey, it was all a very fascist era so let's just skip that history lesson and move on.

Keynes was an economist not a community developer. Simply injecting liquidity into the market today will not and has not yielded the same results despite repeated attempts because American society is different. Today America lacks a key component of that equation, we no longer have a cohesive and connected social fabric. In the 1930s America was primarily a rural, agrarian culture where most everyone knew everyone else in their small town. In this milieu people would naturally cooperate, all they needed was employment and income to survive. Today we need work and trust; it's a much more difficult level to work from but not impossible and the labor programs can be largely reproduced. What's really ironic is that there's no lack of need for labor in the 21st century. Parks, streets, schools, hospitals, virtually every public service and structure needs massive amounts of maintenance and the lack of care is showing up in potholes in roads, overworked medical staff, and budget cuts everywhere. Flawed values, labor pricing and excessive regulations are skewing the system and generating mass-unemployment in the process which is completely unnecessary. Indeed, a visiting cynic might surmise that American's are arresting more people just to find low or no-paid workers to do these critical public maintenance jobs but then losing more money then they save in the process. So why are they doing this the difficult way? With all the unutilized skills and labor in American coupled with the escalating demand for paid employment why does a solution remain so elusive?

Self Sufficient?

American's like to think of themselves as a self-sufficient people but the numbers belie this myth; American's are arguably more dependent on the people and resource of the rest of the world than any other group on the planet today. About 1.3 billion dollars a day is required in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in order to sustain the consumption oriented American away of life. This means that foreigners have to collectively send a billion dollars of their wealth daily into America or the American way of life ceases. Usually this fund transfer takes the form of bond purchases but it could be any asset - stocks, real-estate, etc. In the past the Japanese have been large purchasers of United States Treasury bonds but anymore China is eclipsing them as the biggest vacuum engine sucking them up. China does not allow its currency to float in value freely on the open market like most other currencies which allows them to set the exchange rate in principle. In practice, in order to keep their currency out of balance against the U$ Dollar, China has to sell the yuan and buy Dollars. Secondly the massive trade imbalance is constantly adding to an excess of Dollars on China's (and all of export driven Asia) side and a loss on that of America's.

So why do foreign investors 'buy American' and in such huge amounts? Multiple reasons; in some cases their financial investment alternatives are very limited, and in some cases they have no choice for most critical commodities such as crude oil are denominated in United States Dollars. Also, as in the case of China, it's partly for gaining influence over American policy and partly out of expediency. These chains of debt go both ways though and China is at least as much at America's mercy as the other way around and right now neither party is willing to force any changes in the relationship. But clearly this is not a stable position for such disparate countries to be in. A hundred years ago foolish treaties and legal entanglements between nations started world wars, today the entanglements are usually financial and the result of these often convoluted and unlikely connections are not completely clear; the friction and potential for conflict are quite palpable.

The point is that if federal spending is kept within reason and America domestically produces what it needs instead of importing it then that FDI factor goes way down and America no longer needs to import foreign capital to stay afloat. We regain control of foreign policy and enhance national security. The next question is, how do we compete with penny a day manufacturing wages in developing countries? The answer is volunteer labor, indeed because about the only thing cheaper than these ultra-low wages is free wages. In this case American workers would be building products for Americans to buy, say plastic toys, instead of Chinese workers. Now of course nothing is free, the wages would be paid by the government but since all these imported products come at the price of a trade deficit the financial imbalance would now be internalized and instead of owing foreigners America would owe its own people. The labor force for these less than desirable jobs would be temporary anyway but teenagers could use the after school or summer work. The increase in income earned by American citizens could then be spent locally creating a synergistic financial effect rather than the typical deleterious reverse we see today as money drains out of America almost as fast as the Federal Reserve can print more. Even though the federal government would be deficit spending to give these workers a paycheck it would come back in tax revenue and the need for fewer social programs thanks to the rise in personal income. Obviously the mechanics and other issues such as worker safety would have to be pinned down better but the concept itself is sound. More on this in a moment.

Now as nice and simple as this plan sounds many powerful people are implacably opposed to national control of any single economy because they believe international economic entanglements are a positive development - they see it as preventing nations from going to war with each other. These people will fight like hell to prevent America or any country from building an internally balanced economy (or even a reasonable balanced trade structure) and also to maintain their holy myth of the righteous global economy while making billions of dollars out of this state of affairs. War is inevitable, that is not a choice, but the health of the national economy is. It's time to decide whether we want to attempt to regulate the uncontrollable or change what we really can. Ultimately the decision is nearly inevitable because the global financial circulatory system with America as the heart pumping Dollars is already badly broken like a mortal case of heart disease and cholesterol buildup in the arteries; nobody said myths die without a fight.

Here's an example on the importance of solving our contemporary labor crisis. Right now American companies are rapidly farming out high paying IT (Information Technology) jobs to foreign labor like in India. Indian call-center employees for instance make less than $300 a month! Corporations love this maneuver because they save a fortune now, but they end up losing far more as they gradually erode their customer base by putting them out of work! Corporate executives would outsource their entire workforce immediately but they have to keep public reaction minimized and so they are compelled to do this only slowly and quietly - it's the old boiling a frog analogy by slowly turning up the heat, and you know who the frog is in this case.

It's far more financially sound to have the government pay the full salary of these workers and keep them in their own country than allow corporations to outsource jobs to foreign workforce's because otherwise the government sees no income tax revenue (and how much do corporations pay again?!) and in fact has to pay unemployment! This is a race to the bottom and in the end it is lose, lose, lose for everyone involved. I imagine the primary complaint would be government subsidizing private industry but the payments wouldn't have to be direct they could take the form of tax breaks or tax penalties or something more creative but those are just details obscuring the critical concept. The only safe alternative for the health of the national economy is to simply outlaw this type of job exportation. In America, like most western countries, all licenses to conduct business are issued by the government and can theoretically be revoked just as easily, yet no matter how corrupt the corporation is this almost never happens.

The Danger of Social Compartmentalization

So while the larger scale depicts flawed international relationships, the smaller scale of community is equally ill. At least as serious to long term community cohesion is the threat of specialization. As technology progresses so does the need for specialized education and ever more narrow expertise. People live and work within such and increasingly proscribed range of knowledge and acquaintances that they lose perspective or understanding for the experiences of others [see also: Science as False Saviour, American Supernova and New Democracy ] It's imperative to start bringing people back together if society is to have anything but the most vapid and exploitative of qualities to it. This is because when no one cares about the well being of anyone else they are forced to hide behind short-term self-interest and money and any sense of solidarity or cooperation is quickly eroded away by this acid, and then government and centralized authority has to step in to protect vested interests. Soon the entire social order spirals downward into ever more myopic and meretricious values aimed only at keeping everyone else down rather than aiming to move as many up as possible.

People have to connect with those they live around but if all they ever see are their tight circle of work and friends they become distanced not just from their neighbors but from the political and social system they exist within. This is called disenfranchisement and it runs like a worm through every aspect of modern, professionalized America where even the most simple social task and services once done by friends or relatives, like child daycare, now have to be done by government or private services. It should not be surprising then that trust is lost, now people have less disposable income or time than their parents generation did, everyone locks their doors and fear plagues the populace.

A Solution

I've thought about this considerably and I think we can solve these two critical issues of mass disenfranchisement and unemployment in one package. I thought about Rousseau's comments that forced labor is less damaging to liberty than taxes and it very likely is, but we can go one step further. This idea takes the form of community service, labor in addition or instead of income taxes. It could even have a graduating scale where the more income you make the more community service you have to do. Wouldn't it be great to see Bill Gates out working litter patrol along I-90? More realistically everyone should have the option to do community work or volunteering instead of paying taxes but the amount may have to be asymmetrical in dollar terms in order to generate an incentive. So say you owe $1000 that could translate into $500 worth of community work in time or effort. The point is eventually people would realize they are part of a larger entity, a society, and they are all in it together rich or poor and that everyone must participate or the entire system fails. No one could hide behind money and indeed money would start to lose its appeal because people could exert meaning through other measures besides numerical wealth as their labor for the public would once again have value in and of itself. The benefits of a public works program that replaces money with labor to individual and collective mental health, providing a sense of purpose and meaning, are simply incalculable.

Analyzing the Solution

So in one fell swoop we've undermined the dominance of raw capitalism, defeated public disenfranchisement and reduced unemployment. The sad part is it's such a beautiful concept it probably has little chance of ever being adopted in the current political environment! But in the meantime let's look at potential problems with this idea.

First off, labor and money are not completely interchangeable. In certain cases the government would likely have to pay more to support the labor programs than they take in from direct taxation but they already do this anyway, it would merely be a matter of redirecting the funds, and besides, the benefits to social cohesion are immense. In fact with an increased sense of cooperation and trust the need for police and legal services would decrease dramatically generating a massive savings in government outlays that could easily pay for community labor programs and even turn a surplus in short order.

Second, anytime people volunteer you've got to have a very elaborate network to direct them into places where their skills and interests will do the most good for them and society. Secondly, even when people do volunteer the product is not always as useful as that from a professional and we can't have so many volunteers that it drives the real professionals into unemployment themselves. But the nonprofit sector, meaning all the public services needed that government doesn't fulfill, has immense unfilled needs ready to be staffed. True a lot of the jobs aren't fun or pleasant but that just means someone has to do them and short-term volunteers are a lot cheaper than paid staff and a better solution when employee turnover is high anyway.

Third, in order to push this through the policy window (and maybe that's not even a good idea since state and especially federal government could well be 'the kiss of death') we'd need a catchy name for the bill. 'Community re-investment in labor act' or some such warm and fuzzy boilerplate name. Next, government would have to maintain an interest in keeping the program alive and we can find far more examples, like federal housing programs, where they've set grand goals only to kill them off slowly as each new administration changes the funding levels. So clearly the tax policy could be one-time-changed to favor community labor programs, but expecting any continual subsidies is a mistake, so it would have to fiscally survive on its own. A program of this sort would get a better start in a state government or perhaps even a concerned and visionary city. The caveat here is that in order for this to work strategically, since it's standard Keynesian in economic nature, you've got to be able to deficit spend and currently only the federal government can do that.

Another problem is partisan politics; any program sponsored by one party, no matter how popular, will be targeted for elimination by the opposing party. Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps is an example of a fairly good idea that is slowly being killed through poor planning and under-funding.

Lastly, a certain amount of public resistance might manifest at the start but I think if it's packaged correctly and the tax reduction is highlighted that most people would react enthusiastically - especially if it can be extended to actually create paying jobs as where the unemployed can volunteer in this (government run?) program and get paid to work enhancing their local neighborhood or town and its inhabitants. How many parents would fall over themselves to get their teenage kid into a paying, government regulated summer job? And nobody, not even the rich could criticize it too much because then they look like they don't care about other people, and who can be against creating jobs and helpful jobs at that?!

Pure policy gold, anyone interested? 14.07.03

Anymore, the job of government seems to be simply managing the negative externalities produced by corporate business practices!

War Casualties

At the moment American papers are busy running triumphant headlines of a liberated Kabul and oh how wonderful life is now the men can shave and instead of one theocratic regime they've gained governance by a panoply of disunited, hyper-territorial, chronically fratricidal warlords. Once again conveniently avoiding substance and context crucial to any relevant understanding of the situation such as the rampant ethnic divisions, tribal complexities or the logical rearguard maneuver by the Taliban thereby providing a horrendously over simplified image of a transitory victory for the puerile public to cheer about.

This 'victory' is an unstable situation if for no other reason than the fact that it's given a gaggle of ethnic minorities rule over the predominant Pushtun majority; essentially a regression to the violence and disorder of the post-Soviet invasion period. This is a victory as astonishingly sudden as it is illusory for this rear-guard action has protected the Taliban from significant losses of material while saving all key leaders and losing only a handful of straggling soldiers. Think about it, the only city that exerted any concerted, documented resistance before it fell was Kunduz, an isolated pocket in the far north of Afghanistan where force extrication and rear-guard is impossible. If we should learn anything form this past few weeks it's that Afghanistan is not what it appears to be. This was far too easy to be anything but a trap; it's a very rational tactical maneuver played on the terms of the Taliban planners. So rapid it sets American planners off balance because they're not ready to implant the necessary military forces or government oversight. Furthermore the Northern alliance has clearly overextended, placed themselves into a very visible position attempting to hold the cities amid ethnically unfriendly southern territory. The Taliban knows they can't win a traditional military conflict for they cannot strike back at B-52's flying at 35,000 feet; if they wait around they'll inevitably be chewed up. Instead they want U$ forces on the ground where they can mercilessly apply their well honed guerilla tactics. The American planners will continue to be duped and confused by these ruses because they believe their own propaganda and continue to exhibit a remarkable inability to fathom the complexity of the situation on the ground.

The only good coming form this development is that hopefully now the U$ won't have to carpet bomb with Humanitarian Daily Rations but will be able to truck in some edible food to the starving. But the point is that the American people have nothing to gain in Afghanistan regardless of who wins or loses. And while America may already be blowing over a billion dollars a month just on fuel and bombs the real loss is less recoverable because it's a loss of freedom.

The American people are the prisoners of their media. They're ordinary people, concerned with their daily lives, with earning a living. We must try to reach them through debate, not through hostility. - Sheikh Qaradawi from an interview with al-Jazeera.

Actually most Americans are more than just prisoners they're slaves because everything they know about world and even domestic events is filtered and purveyed to them through the mass-media making a sham of democracy and obfuscating the truly critical events with the smoke screen of the trivial. Reference the example above of the Northern Alliance 'victory', the ridiculously oversimplified who's up, who's down, who won, who lost, plastic reality being conveyed through every morning paper and every evening TV news broadcast. What the hell does that matter when Capitol Hill is feverishly abrogating civil liberties and selling out to corporate interests on an unprecedented scale! War in Afghanistan is a diversion, and a remarkably effective one for the rapid erosion of civil liberties. Regardless of the shifting allegiances Taliban or Northern alliance the end result is trivial for Americans. Terrorism wont go away regardless but the Bill of Rights will.

The infamous 'USA PATRIOT' act was enthusiastically signed by Congress even though almost no one read it! Not that our benevolent elected protectors ever had the desire to wade through it all or question the inserted plenitude of corporate giveaways to their local districts. And while the legislative branch is signing away our freedom and tax dollars, president Bush's executive branch is spewing out equally appalling Executive Orders. Now 'terrorists' will be tried under military tribunals thereby avoiding all those pesky rights and rules; now you are guilty until proven innocent. But that's just the latest maneuvers, anymore it's a full-time job just trying to keep up with this guy and his constantly shifting plans, bureau changes and voluble doublespeak. Not since FDR has any president worked so hard to subvert the constitution to empower the executive branch. For all the right-wing panic over Clinton's executive escapades, legion of EOs and the threat of using emergencies to invoke special powers, now that Republicans, like the religious zealot John 'police state' Ashcroft, are doing even worse in a matter of two months while the partisan outrage is nonexistent; cute.

And if you think the U$ governments efforts to subvert the Bill of Rights is ambitious, the efforts of blundering Blair's regime in the UK are downright frenetic! Without ever even being attacked, their unified government, headed by home secretary David Blunkett, has already moved to trash civil liberties, opting out of human rights legislation just to target 20 foreign "terrorists"! Here are a few of the clauses that have leaked out from this 125-clause bill:

• Ban on publishing details of nuclear waste train movement - clause 79.

• A criminal offence punishable by up to one month in prison for refusing a reasonable police request to remove a disguise - clause 93.

• Internet service providers are required to retain data of Internet and e-mail traffic for 12 months to be used by police in crime investigations; to be renewed every two years.

• Penalty of up to seven years for incitement of religious hatred (whatever that really means).

• Making it a criminal offence to not disclose information to the authorities that could help to prevent terrorist attacks.

War kills more than just soldiers and civilians, it kills freedom and civil liberties. 14.11.01

The better the constitution of a State is, the more do public affairs encroach on private in the minds of the citizens. Private affairs are even of much less importance, because the aggregate of the common happiness furnishes a greater proportion of that of each individual, so that there is less for him to seek in particular cares. In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies: under a bad government no one cares to stir a step to get to them, because no one is interested in what happens there, because it is foreseen that the general will will not prevail, and lastly because domestic cares are all-absorbing. Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse. As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost. From: On The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1762.

The 21st Century Bio-Political Policy Revolution

I don't think the full implications of equal social access by women are as of yet being grasped. The disconnect between the act of sex and reproduction has led to what I would argue is the most monumental event in human evolution. So it's wise to realize what we have today is but the beginning.

At present is the first generation entering adult life where females can do or attempt to do whatever males do as well as attain positions within that society, most notably critical roles in law, leadership and policy making. What we've already experienced over the past 30 years is merely women assuming male roles and mostly making male decisions within a phallocentric ethos. This is rapidly being superseded by the next phase of the bio-cultural evolution, the formation of new roles and entirely new structures designed by these 'pioneering' women. This is the real paradigm shift with lasting significance, improved technology especially of communications will facilitate this.

And yet all this is not a path to equality but to a reversal. The mechanics the plumbers, the caretakers and custodians of technology they're all primarily male occupations - the drones. While increasingly the legislators, the judges, the administrators are females - the planners. This trend is most pronounced in the west, example New Zealand which at this moment already has its own "matriarchy" of government. The developing world is slowly approaching the same conclusion because it's the inevitable byproduct of reproductive technology. This is why regression is futile unless you want to throw out every other advance with it. The next 30 years will see female motivations and goals assuming greater significance, the rules are changing, it's shouting over fists, ideas over action.

Election and funding issues, already shifting, will increasingly focus on causes and needs that fit with the female voters and the women policy-makers in public offices. Medical research for example will shift from a male focus to female driven by demand and the money and influence behind it. But far more important are the fundamental ideologies that motivate political and social outcome. The shift here is undeniably away from the phallocentric to the gynocentric. Significant problems manifest here because all of this operates in a zero-sum game, from funding to research allocations, to give to one requires taking from another. Regressionists or conservatives, like fundamentalist religions, are the primary opponents but other forces also act to slow this change. Oddly enough technology is more the ally of women but it's slavishly advocated by men inadvertently constructing their own obsolescence or at least severe specialization of roles.

To be a successful ideology in the 21st century will require not just mere inclusion of female interests but likely as a central focus. Or at least have a broad female appeal which necessitates dumping the old systems. I don't know exactly what the solution is but I have a suspicion few others know either. I know what it isn't and one example is feminism - voted the least likely ideology to provide what it promises. When not discredited it's simply outdated anyway. Feminism is a product of the archaic ethos where women fear men and feel threatened by their continued dominance of the superstructure. But as we've seen women now have the upper hand on social evolution anyway; the fear is only counterproductive. I call's 'em as I see's 'em - the 21st century is the century of the woman. 06.07.01

The Speciousness of Government

Ever get the chance to watch British politics on cable? Or maybe you even live there and can watch it constantly! Remember to bring the beer and chips and invite the friends over. But seriously they don't get anything done except talk the audience and the electorate into tears of boredom do they? And I think this is a critical point within the western 'democratic' political machine that's generally ignored. In the U$A even with the Senate and the House deadlocked between Republican and Democrat they get about as much done as usual - whole lot of hot air and empty legislation with the usual re-warmed side dishes of pork and grease. Or what about when the entire Capitol Hill shuts down after a budget crisis? Does the world stop cold in terror, panic in the streets? Hell no, life goes on as usual.

With or without the eminent political machine in action everyday life remains oblivious and nonplused. Despite what they themselves claim and the media talk shows try to portray, our politicians are more idle than the military in peacetime, and the politicos don't even have training missions just dinner parties.

Only certain peoples need government. An intelligent and self-sufficient polity can maintain a healthy and productive lifestyle regardless of the edicts and machinations of legislature. And this is why modern-conservatives have a legitimate gripe when they complain that government makes life and the pursuit of happiness more difficult not the other way around. On the other hand people that can't take care of themselves, the ignorant, grumblers and the handicapped all need authority, they need government to apply order to their chaotic, fractional and pointless lives. Nations that consist primarily of the first self-sufficient types can be both happy and successful with no government, or more commonly the lackey cousin reactionary and idle government that only activates upon evidence of crisis (real, imagined or self-created), in other words 'democracy'. 27.01.01

Rivers of Blood

I see the same legislative pattern relating to race relations repeating itself throughout the western regimes. The white mans penchant for legislating problems under the rug combined with a perverted sense of idealism relating to the inherent nobility of each individual human soul divorced from any sense of group and historical connections. The digital society viewing human nature out of context by isolating it from any collective or emotional motivation. Denial has yet to prove strategically effective. But that won't stop 'em from trying again and again, dammit!

But for a moment, think about what happens whenever disparate races, ethnic and even religious groups are densely packed next to each other? In other words the modern cosmopolitan urban lifestyle. Problems invariably manifest such as violence, jealousy, animosity and a heightened sense of 'us versus them'.

OK so now these trends emerge and the source of all legitimate solutions, our illustrious legislature must act. Three options emerge from analysis of the situation.

1. Legislate 'hate' and race laws punishing all expressions of hostility. Restricts freedom of debate and expression. Fails because it's underpinned by the flawed assumption that people will react to potential punishment in a logical rather than reactionary and emotional way.

2. Legislate each group into an isolated enclave thereby physically reducing tension (balkanization method). Problems - limits freedom of movement and free association.

3. Remove the minorities reverting to a more harmonious mono-racial system similar to 100 years ago.

One can't be taken out of whole or they lose meaning, remember my diatribe on art and how it needs a marketplace? No man is an island may be a hackneyed phrase but it still has validity, human nature is not something that can function in a vacuum. Gaia concept for biology, albeit a little colorful does have a certain amount of truth because life is interrelated. Another metaphor, the human eye sees not a series of colored dots but a moving image on the TV screen.

No individual can be divorced from their clan, their society or their group affiliations and everyone has them whether they like it or not both biological and culturally speaking. So the choice is clear, denial of group affiliated responsibilities living in a fractured, unrewarding realm of narcissistic self-worship. Or cooperation and acceptance of social responsibility and mutual needs, functioning together with like minded persons working together to design solutions that address group needs.

That's far too mature an answer for our present infantile, reactionary milieu; it's merely a portent of the inevitable denouement of logical reasoning. The true creed of our era: rivers of blood before reason 11.12.00

In Defense of American Elections

First of all reverting to a simple majority vote for President isn't going to make it any less palatable. I mean with some 300 votes separating the call in Florida and a few thousand for the entire nation, it seems like the Electoral college is presently more of a legalistic scapegoat than the real problem. Now I'm not in love with the Electoral College system either but it serves a logical purpose. The plan behind it makes sense if you understand it because the point is to even out the imbalance between the popular vote and the voice of the States. Without the electoral system the contest would boil down to a total mob-ocracy based purely on a popularity contest and weighted towards the major population centers while under-representing the vast hinterlands and rural electorate. Second, foreign opinion deriding American electoral indecision is completely hypocritical to say the least. Cram it world.

No philanthropist should really want the College changed because it's ensconced in the Constitution and would require a Constitutional Convention to change it. This would open up a very hazardous Pandora's box. Besides altering the Constitution, a bad idea to begin with, you can bet your life savings that the Electoral College won't be the only issue politicians will try to run through the convention. This is like giving legislators a blank check, free license to rewrite the Constitution. No wonder schemers like Senator Hillary Clinton are on this issue like stink on a monkey.

I'm an amendment to be, an amendment to be and I'm hopin that they'll ratify me...Doors Open Boys!

Finally I will note that in the unlikely event that the Electoral College system is abolished the outcome may well come back to bite the two party duopoly in the ass. Because theoretically any person or party can then win office just by gaining a plurality, meaning more votes than any other opponent be it 1 vote or 20 million. 10.11.00

21^st Century Reduction – When Constitution Becomes Inconsequential

Indonesia, now Ecuador, the entire Sub-Saharan African continent and the old geographic region of the Russian Empire too, these places are ceasing to exist as functional states. Institutions crumbling and economies grinding to a halt. Evaporating polity being replaced by gangs and clans. Is this the New World order?

Just because these places are far from our everyday concerns doesn’t make them insignificant. It may be just the fringe crumbling now but the problems will just get closer everyday. Ecuador is a good case example. Undeveloped countries like Ecuador have long sought financial aid to improve their economies. But instead of investing in infrastructure and industries that will increase long term economic viability they sunk part of the cash into merely stabilizing commodity exports while squandering the rest through graft and fiscal malfeasance. And who are the crooks? Ecuador is typical in that the governing class is American trained, educated and supported, the technocrats that seem to be very good at getting re-elected and making problems worse. Mahuad who just got kicked out of power in Ecuador is a U$ trained lawyer, he works for the American team and sponsors western financial groups such as the IMF and World Bank over the indigenous interests of the locals. Big money creditors play the tune on their pipe and debt ridden developing nations dance to it. The relationship is similar to feudalism with the developing world as the serfs and the west as the royalty.

The 1980s saw huge influxes of cash loans to areas such as South America for pro-western leverage against Soviet incursions but also to prop up friendly technocrats. The amount of money handed out far exceeded the debtor’s ability to repay and soon the system started to bog down. Rising interest rates put the heat on the developing world and new scams had to be concocted to keep up appearances. Brady loans were issues and backed by the U$ government. Of course Mexico was bailed out several times like this, each rescue package bigger than the last.

The 1997 Asian financial crisis saw the problems of the Western Hemisphere being replicated. Export based countries with rock bottom wages and vastly over-extended debt. The U$ government and related front companies, like the IMF, once again bailed everyone out and the private banks once again made a killing loaning money to people that can’t pay it back. All through this nothing changes because the same clowns that squandered the loans in the first place do the same thing again.

But the structural limitations within the developing world have stretched to the breaking point. The debt trap has finally arrived. Long term neglect of both the labor and income base for the economies have resulted in situations that are virtually incapable of solution. Much of the developing world that hasn’t already ground to a complete halt in its internal economics is rapidly approaching such a dénouement. Ecuador is merely the latest unsung victim of this long-term corruption. After defaulting on virtually all its debt the country is broke and sold-off; commodity prices are anemic and they have no residual infrastructure or income to show for billions in loans. Every existing faction and legions of new ones are screaming for subsistence aid. Leadership will become a monthly revolving door because nothing is left to distribute to anyone. The country will soon cease to exist in any recognizable political or economic form, reduced to tribal and gang associations – 500 years of toil and they’re worse off then before Columbus.

Indonesia the world’s fourth most populated country is bigger so it’s a more torturous struggle to reach the same point. Most everyone knows about East Timor, but Aceh, the Molluccas, everywhere religious strife is rampant. Soon Indonesia will also cease to exist in any structural political form, once again reduced to clans and tribes.

Central Africa, ravaged by AIDS and constant warfare, is being rapidly reduced to a level of desolation pathetic even by African standards. Formerly rich countries like Zaire/Congo and South Africa are now poor, conflict wracked and politically atomized. The entire framework of borders and governments installed by European empires over the past 200 or more years is dissolving faster than a snow cone in Texas. Just because the map shows neat lines and pretty colors doesn’t mean the actual situation is anywhere near that simple.

Once a polity crumbles completely it’s no easy task to rebuild it. You can’t just dole out loans to the latest big-shot because no lines of communication or legal order exist to distribute it. It’s like trying to develop Afghanistan by giving loans to the Taliban militia, or sending e-mail to someone who doesn’t have a computer. The money has nowhere to go and no system to deliver it.

All this is a recipe for long term instability destined to benefit no one. The 21^st century is likely to be one characterized by narrowly defined local order and global disorder. The only silver lining I see from it is the fact that the developing world finally has a real opportunity to carve unique indigenous identities free from cultural pollution and technocratic politicians.

Anyway the latest concept for ameliorating the anguish of the developing world is debt forgiveness. It’s a fine idea but far too late and too little to help. Most loans up for discussion have been declared uncollectible anyhow, and the primary motive is to just clean up the books enough to disperse more loans. What these nations need is not loans but a program to build up a solid industrial base to support both export and import economies. I think that a lot of the resistance to this approach comes from western industry which doesn’t want anymore competition than they already have. A prosperous developing world would mean Multi-Nationals paying more to sew underwear and make toys for your McDonalds ‘happy meals’. 22.01.00

The Politics of Cooperation

The Clinton impeachment trial has been a veritable litany of one Orwellian catchphrase after another. Just today on live Senate Coverage one of Clinton's defense lawyers referred to the US [political system] as a Democracy. Last time I checked we exist under a Federal Republic, nor does the Constitution say anything about democracy. North Korea is a Democratic Republic. The old East Germany was a Democratic Republic.

Evidently that’s the level our current leadership operates on.

But another one that disturbs me even more is the constant emphasis on this idea of ‘bipartisan politics’. In other words the cooperation of both parties on legislative issues. Come on! What the hell is the purpose of having two parties if all they do is cooperate on the issues!? The whole point of politics is that you have two opposing viewpoints that work to enact legislation benefiting their side and their constituents. In fact the entire purpose of two parties feeds back to the checks and balances concept; it’s an issue of negative force cancellation. As soon as we do away with this ‘evil’ concept of partisanship we lose any pretext of representative government and become a one party dictatorship. Ok maybe it will be a dictatorship led by the mob (or proletariat if you prefer) for awhile but it sure won’t last that way for long.

Maybe this plot is more insidious than just an unimaginative popular lexicon or Pavlovian response? Maybe the purpose here is to actually transform the U$ into a true democracy by starting with the vocabulary?

The World Almanac has already started. Under the heading for type of government the USA is listed as "Federal Republic, with a strong democratic tradition." I bet in five years they’ll just drop the first part and go with ‘democracy’ and leave any debate up to the Constitutional scholars. 25.01.99

Why Voting is for Fools

I was going to vote this November but I thought about it and I couldn't think of any rational reason why I should? I don't buy lottery tickets so why should I vote? I can't even win anything by voting!

But why does anyone vote? The implied purpose is to express one's ideological will and elect the person or issue you support. Yet that individual power is instantly nullified by even one other person entering the voting pool. You're not really deciding anything! It wouldn't have any pivotal significance in the election anyway unless of course as previously stated I was the only one voting - hardly a realistic possibility.

Of course even that reasoning assumes that one person running for office is actually better than the other. Another possibility I would have to express intense skepticism towards.

Voting is just a trick to make the masses think they're participating in a representative process that works for their best interests. It's another element of a continuing psychological warfare campaign accurately aimed at societies weakest defenses, especially human natures inability to perceive the significance of large-scale statistical formulas. People ignore the odds and focus on the prize which is not only more tangible but also much more appealing.

After 150 years our voting rights have been so diluted anyway that the act of voting has ceased to be meaningful. The only requirement left to be a voter is 18 years of life and citizenship, and now even the citizenship part is being questioned! For example when the Supreme Court votes it actually matters if one abstains or switches sides. But only a select few get the privilege of voting on the Supreme Court. Obviously there is a direct relation between the significance of a vote and the number of constituents allowed voting.

But 200 years ago the US was very different, indeed the world was radically different. When it comes to voting numbers do matter. In 1790 the city of New York had a population of 33,000 and was the largest city in the North America. Voting rights then were for only a select few. The nation was divided up into a system of rural, agrarian plantations. The factors of time and distance we simply ignore today were significant obstacles to 18^th century life. By now it should be painfully obvious why our legal-judicial system doesn't work anymore? It was constructed during the middle ages!

If voting really changed anything we wouldn't allow the fools to have the same input as the geniuses. But since everyone is completely equal anyway it doesn't matter that citizens vote on things they have no understanding of while what little information they have to determine fact over fiction is manipulated like advertising copy and reduced to 30 second sound bites during prime time. Still this contemporary myth of universal voting rights has to be one of the gravest insults of the modern era foisted upon the individualist spirit. There it is in black and white, my ideas and yours are no more relevant than the six-pack slob whose idea of intellectual recreation is the nightly news.

But the insult doesn't stop there. I mean 'you have a problem with the government? Well then just get out and vote! After all it's the non-voter that is the problem with the system. If everyone voted why what a utopian world we would inhabit!' Specious reasoning breeds like flies in summer. Finally why should I vote at all when it just encourages the established hierarchy of corruption? 28.10.98

So many shoes for only two feet...
[Imelda Marcos inspects her shoe museum]