One Planet @crjohnson77-blog - Tumblr Blog

The Grinch that Stole America

There once was a county. The U. S. of A. And most of the people, were really OK. They had some problems. It’s true they weren’t spotless. But mostly they were respectful. To each other not thoughtless. But among their midst, a hatred was birthing. Inspired by a man with wounds he was nursing. His ego had been bruised, by what no one knew. But inside his heart, his anger only grew. He decided he would steal, the little joy that he saw. He decided he must do it, once and for all. He hatched a plan to be, to be as mean as he could. He reasoned this might, bring hate back and would. Demolish his foes, and poison children’s hearts. All this he would do, said the orange old fart. So out from his lair, emerged the real estate baron. He started by claiming the President’s an alien. For this he moved quickly, up the White Supremacist ladder. And each insult he hurled, just made his fans madder. “They’re taking your jobs. They’re taking your guns.” “And what makes this worse, is they are the Huns.” He shouted and screamed and made babies cry. His tiny hands clenched, clenched up to the sky. He never did read, but said he was smart. And blacker it grew. His dark orange heart. He mocked the impaired, and said “grab em by the pussy.” He said, “I’m the greatest.” But he looked like a wussy. He told first one lie, and then told another. And when these lies worked, he said, “Why even bother!” “With truth, integrity, or science at all.” “This is a post truth world, and I’m standing tall.” “There’s a media conspiracy,” he said from his twitter. And more and more, the two sides grew bitter. “The scientists are wrong. I’m a climate change denier.” But deep down he knew. Knew he was a liar. His misogyny grew daily. His hatred did mount. “What a nasty woman,” he did viciously shout. And all the while, a country once united. Grew further apart, while the angry man shouted. Some tried to stand up, and protest this disgrace. But by now what could be done, about the mean orange face. His rage would grow hot, at something he didn’t like. He’d put on his suit, and run to the Mike. “I’m the greatest! The best in the world!” “You are all Feeble, Incompetent, Girls.” “I am the Donald. My name is in Gold.” “It’s not at all Tacky. I’m just Great and Bold.” “Build the wall. Build the wall.” They angrily chanted. “It’s time we got back, to doing what we wanted.” And thus more division, was sown East and West. And all the while Putin, smiled deeply at rest.

#trumpdrseuss #drseuss #trump #donald trump #dr seuss #politics

Economic Dualism and the Clash of Capitalism and Socialism

America is a Capitalist nation whilst China is a Socialist one. Capitalist nations are better off economically than Socialist nations. One cannot support Capitalism and Socialism simultaneously. These are just a few examples of Economic Dualism, a type of binary thinking that creates absolutes for economic and political systems, where none in fact exist. Its practitioners reek of dogmatic thinking and propagandist rhetoric, and one doesn’t have to look far or hard to find it.

The fundamental error of Economic Dualism is the assumption of an absolute state, whereby a nation is either all this or all that in terms of its economic and political organization. Most, if not all, societies fall somewhere on the Capitalist/Socialist spectrum. China embraces more organization, production, and distribution by the state than by private individuals, while America tilts in the opposite direction*. Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Canada, and Norway are all considered Socialist nations, but they enjoy an abundant amount of entrepreneurship and production in the private sector. Clearly the two modes of organization can exist simultaneously.

In America, national defense takes a Socialism form, provided mostly by the government with the help of private sector contractors. Many of our utilities are owned by the public and run as non-profit, and most of our public lands are also state managed. There are also numerous business cooperatives and other business arrangements, wherein many individuals own a business and share in the production and consumption of goods and services. But in spite of the obvious coexistence of Socialism and Capitalism, each side continues to demonize the other instead of looking for the merits that can easily be found in each.

Private ownership and production is beneficial because it can be started easily and quickly to meet a sudden economic need. This structure is more flexible and adaptable to a rapidly changing world because decisions do not always have to be made by consensus. What the boss says goes. With a state owned and operated system, decision making by consensus is a benefit, because all parties involved or affected can have a say in the outcome. This system can also address needs that cannot or will not be met by private individuals acting in their own best interest. River system management or air quality control is usually best accomplished this way.

So why this uncomfortable tension and even outright vehemence between supporters of Socialism and supporters of Capitalism in American culture? Part of the problem is the dominance of Capitalism in our society, and the insistence of its supporters, beyond all reasonable evidence, that it is superior in every regard to Socialism. But another, and perhaps more compelling reason, has to do with one of the main downsides of Capitalism. When a private owner operates their business, they generally do so only with their best interest in mind. Often, this conflicts with the interests of the community at large (e.g. an upstream polluter). The Capitalist anticipates a possible intrusion in what they deem their private affairs, and its supporters have worked very hard to undermine anyone attempting to advocate a Socialist position.

It is the clash of supporters of private interests and supporters of public interests that has created the Economic Dualism we see today. Neither side of course has all the answers, but each side is convinced that it is somehow fully in the right. To the Capitalist I say: “You are not an island. Make your peace with that and seek the greater good.” To the Socialist I say: “Your time will come. But accept the Capitalist/Socialist yin and yang and don’t do what the Capitalists have done.”

*Capitalism is defined as “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.” Socialism is defined as “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange, should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

#capitalism #socialism #economics #economic dualism

Why equality and equity matters

Equality is the buzzword of Economists, progressives, and liberals everywhere. Equality is rooted in ideas of fairness, and there are plenty of moral arguments one can make for it. But an equally important argument is the idea that equality promotes peace. When individuals feel that their stake in this world has been marginalized by others, are or made to feel that they are somehow less important or significant, they will be inclined to feel threatened, alienated, and angry. It’s a completely natural and totally valid response to an external threat. If one agrees that peace is better than the suffering brought on by conflict, then one must commit fully to the idea of equality, and doing so does not come for free.

Cooperation is at the heart of equality. Giving is at the heart of equality. Sharing is at the heart of equality. Realizing that you could have more but find contentment with less is at the heart of equality. Envy of the wealth of others is not at the heart of equality. Building a personal empire by paying minimum wage is not at the heart of equality. Charging the highest possible price for services or goods, just because you can, is not at the heart of equality. Greed and profit maximization is not at the heart of equality (every Economist just had a conniption, but it’s true). The assumption that by seeking the best possible outcome for ourselves in every circumstance we are maximizing global welfare is wrong.

All wealth anywhere is based upon resources extracted from the earth (Adam Smith and virtually all Economists would agree). Given the finite nature of these resources, it makes no sense for one attempting to follow the spirit of equality to seek to gain the greatest possible wealth. But our entire society has been inculcated and indoctrinated into believing this is paramount. Our culture makes us think that we can grow and create wealth for our society and it will cost us nothing. This makes absolutely no sense in a world of finite resources. If you find beauty in the land, the forests, the animals, and the sea, you will reject the idea of infinite growth and infinite wealth. There is a cost.

And just as there is a cost of growth, there is a cost of inequality. And that cost is conflict, and conflict is self-destructive. To be passive in the face of inequality is to seek conflict and war. Peace can only be achieved when the status quo is good for everyone. Those who truly love peace and hate war are the ones most committed to equality.

Inequality is hard to achieve primarily because it goes against our animal natures. We are hard wired to compete and store as much wealth as we can for ourselves and our families. But taking it a step too far and going beyond what is needed for normal subsistence is a cause of much pain and suffering in this world. Equality is the result of a collection of individuals taking steps to ensure they take only what they need and allow enough room for others to live in parity.

theliberaltony

A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.

Bernie Sanders (via theliberaltony)

Bernie Sanders’ parents are Holocaust survivors by the way.

(via theautisticagender)

crjohnson77-blog

Practice what you preach

Democrats should think very carefully about why so many people are voting for Trump and not Hillary. Simply vilifying and calling out Trump as a demagogue is not enough. If Trump’s supporters are fueled by anger then so be it. People want a voice. The disenfranchised want a voice. It’s not enough to demonize them without offering something better. Trump promises change in ways that are divisive and foolish, but he has given them hope. A false and dangerous hope. But it’s hope nonetheless.

Bernie Sanders fought for change too. He believed corporate interests were being served at the expense of regular people. He believed that big money had to be driven out of our elections. And now it seems that part of the reason he lost the primary race was just because of that; because of cronyism, collusion, and probably outright cheating. Is there any better way to poke someone in the eye than to trample over what they were fighting for?

Lesser and greater evils mostly exist because we trod the same well worn path instead of reaching for something better. It’s not enough to belittle Trump’s voters and chide them for their foolishness. Instead, measurable, inclusive, actionable solutions have to be created and offered as an alternative. It’s not enough to say nice things about being unified and not act in a way that unites. What have the Democrats done to draw in Trump’s voters? How have they tried to address their issues and concerns? It’s not enough to call out a bigot, you have to act in a way that shows you yourself are open to new ideas. It’s not enough to shame a liar, you yourself have to act with the utmost of integrity. It’s not enough to say that someone makes empty promises if you yourself are guilty of the very thing.

Tribalism, party politics, and rigid groupthink is not innovative and does nothing to unite. How can it? It only seeks to serve those already being served. If the status quo is all we seek, then we will continue on the path we are on. The path of war, divisiveness, racism, anger, inequality, bigotry, and distrust. And we will have Trump, who represents many of these things.

One of the lessons of this election is to step outside your circle, party, and affiliations, and do not settle for what you have. We have to learn to reach out to those around us, especially those from other parties. There is always a way to proceed that offers people who don’t see the world the same way a share in building our world. This is the dream we must seek to fulfill. Be like Christopher Columbus and risk everything for that dream, and you will see your fears are unfounded. Ask anyone who has ever risked everything for some idea or dream, no matter how crazy it seemed, and they will tell you it was completely worth it in the end. It always pays to dream.

#bernie sanders #election #trump #election 2016 #presidential election #hillary clinton #hillary

the-revolution-continues

Disappointed, but not in Bernie. Disappointed in our whole rigged system. Disappointed that millions did not have the opportunity to vote due to superfluous rules, or not switching parties in time (like in NY).

I understand the anger and frustration; I feel it too.

Bernie has fought for the working class, for the environment, for senior citizens, for veterans, for his whole life. To dismiss a lifetime of his efforts based on his endorsement of Clinton seems misplaced. This man has fought so hard for us and done so much. He’s sparked a flame that will not be extinguished. It’s up to us now. The revolution continues.

occupywatchdog

#Chevron vs. the Amazon - The Environmental Trial of the Century - #environment #BigOil

stop-the-oligarchy

phroyd

Democrats Influenced by Corporate Media think Integrity and Honesty is an Illness!

Phroyd

glamourweaver

Two Party Dominance

There’s a bit of rhetoric around the dominance of the two major parties in the United States, that treats it as some sort of cultural issue where if only people would break out of their brainwashing and VOTE for Third Party candidates that dominance would be shattered. This is unfortunately untrue. Breaking the Sith-like “Rule of Two” that dominates American politics would take bedrock Constitutional reform to the election process, that is grossly unlikely because it would require the states to willingly sacrifice their power in said reforms’ ratification. Part of the misnomer is the idea that the system looks the way it does because the two parties rigged it in their favor. Certainly there are aspects here and there that do reflect that two parties making it harder for Third Party or Independent Candidates, but these issues are minor in comparison to the forces that created the dominance of the two major parties in the first place. Ironically, it is the fact that our Constitution was NOT written with national parties in mind that creates the issue. Those representative and parliamentary democracies that support a wide range of parties have electoral systems that are built around the assumption the political parties, while the US system was built around the assumption that there wouldn’t be any. The Framers believed that state loyalty would trump all in national elections, and that political interests between the states were too diverse for parties to organize around national agendas. Obviously they would prove themselves wrong as they gathered into camps of Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans ridiculously quickly, because of the electoral forces they built into the system. Election laws for federal office are (for the most part) set by the states. The states determine the process of electing Congressional Representatives, Senators (originally appointed by state government, but after the 17th Amendment, required to be by popular vote of state residents), and how to distribute their electors for the electoral college for President. Overwhelmingly, in the interest of simplicity, and (in the case of the electors) to maximize the political influence of the state, they favor a system of plurality rule/winner-take-all. In UK parlance, this system is also called “First Past the Post”. It simply means that which ever candidate gets the most votes, 100% wins. Sounds simple enough, right? The candidate who gets the most votes wins. What’s wrong with that? Seems a natural and self-explanatory enough system for a country that uses “Single Member District” representation (as opposed to systems of proportional representation, like many multi-party parliamentary countries - I’ll describe that later if you’re curious). Well, it is - that’s why it’s the default. The “problem” arises in that it doesn’t require a majority - just the largest plurality. If a majority was required to win, we’d have a lot more run-off elections for Congress, as the largest vote-getters fought it out in revotes trying to get a true majority (50% +1 vote). Notably Louisiana uses a majority rule system for its elections and has a TON of run-offs compared to most states. So, why does this result in 2-party rule? The reason is simple. Lets look at Presidential elections. California has 55 electoral votes, the most in the country. Under our system of two party rule, it’s a solid “Blue State” meaning it is reliably going to vote for the Democrat in the Presidential race, and as such it doesn’t attract a lot of attention in the race, because the candidates are going to focus their resources on states they can win or are at risk of losing (the so called “Swing States”). Let’s assume that wasn’t true though. Lets say there are 5 political parties reflecting the variety of views and agendas in play in California and no two hold solid dominance like in our system? What happens under “first-past-the-post”? Hypothetically… A right-wing party gets 25% of the vote A socially-liberal free-market libertarian party gets 17% of the vote A moderate progressive-capitalist party (ala the Democrats) gets 24% of the vote A socialist party gets 17% of the vote A break-away environmentalist party (that feels the socialist party above puts too much emphasis on jobs at the expense of conservation) gets another 17% So what happens? The right-wing party, with 25% of the vote gets all 55 electors, despite the majority of voters being vehemently opposed to their agenda. This creates the inevitable incentive for opposition to that ruling plurality to unify together, despite their differences, for them to be the ruling plurality. That inevitably reduces the number of parties down to the rule of two. Any remotely successful third party inevitably aides the largest party they are ideologically FURTHEST from, under this system. Even the so-called “proportional” distribution of electors that a few states use doesn’t fix this problem. Because electors are elected by individual districts in the state using the same system only more localized. This opens up a bit more possibility for a few third party electors to actually go to the electoral college, but doesn’t resolve the overall issue. (This is more or less why there are comparatively more successful third parties in the UK. Because they don’t vote nationally for Prime Minister, instead each district elects their MP using the first-past-the-post system, and whichever party has a majority of seats in Parliament, their party leader becomes Prime Minister. Thus you have openings for more localized two party contests that aren’t the larger dominant two-parties. The system still overwhelmingly disadvantages third parties, as any Lib-Dem will talk your ear off over). The states (who control the ratification process for Constitutional Amendments) are in no rush to change this system, as it assures their importance in the Presidential election. Lets say instead we had national popular vote determine the President, requiring majority win, with a run-off between the two top vote-getters in December if no one wins a majority in November. Now third parties can be more competitive, assured that even if they can’t win the Presidency, they aren’t helping the worst possible option, and can always vote for the lesser evil in December, thus letting them build the groundwork necessary to be competitive in Congressional races. What happens to states like Ohio in this scenario. Currently they attract overwhelming attention as the Presidential candidates battle it out to eek out a plurality win and thus snatch its 18 electoral votes. But under this alternate system, the difference between narrowly winning vs narrowly losing Ohio barely matters, and instead Presidential candidates are going to focus on highly dense population areas where they can get out the largest vote of their supporters. Maybe good for California, New York City (though upstate will be ignored), and parts of the South, but overall you can see why state governments would not be happy at all with this scenario, as Senators hoping to run for President one day stop trying to shower them with goodies like farm-subsidies to make their voters happy. So in short, no, you aren’t sticking it to two-party rule by rebelliously voting third party. You’re just making one of the two snicker. Opening up our elections isn’t a matter of cultural change, it’s a matter of legal reform to the very foundation of how our elections work. And that reform is next to impossible

#two party system #politics

occupywatchdog

The importance of voting for a candidate that isn’t beholden to corrupt special interests. Even if that candidate isn’t part of the 2 main political establishment (Democrat or Republican).

primetap-blog

Ah, the two party system…

The very reason that George Washington warned us about the dangers of establishing political parties in his farewell address. They serve to divide The People by providing the illusion of choice.

Practice what you preach

Democrats should think very carefully about why so many people are voting for Trump and not Hillary. Simply vilifying and calling out Trump as a demagogue is not enough. If Trump’s supporters are fueled by anger then so be it. People want a voice. The disenfranchised want a voice. It’s not enough to demonize them without offering something better. Trump promises change in ways that are divisive and foolish, but he has given them hope. A false and dangerous hope. But it’s hope nonetheless.

Bernie Sanders fought for change too. He believed corporate interests were being served at the expense of regular people. He believed that big money had to be driven out of our elections. And now it seems that part of the reason he lost the primary race was just because of that; because of cronyism, collusion, and probably outright cheating. Is there any better way to poke someone in the eye than to trample over what they were fighting for?

Lesser and greater evils mostly exist because we trod the same well worn path instead of reaching for something better. It’s not enough to belittle Trump’s voters and chide them for their foolishness. Instead, measurable, inclusive, actionable solutions have to be created and offered as an alternative. It’s not enough to say nice things about being unified and not act in a way that unites. What have the Democrats done to draw in Trump’s voters? How have they tried to address their issues and concerns? It’s not enough to call out a bigot, you have to act in a way that shows you yourself are open to new ideas. It’s not enough to shame a liar, you yourself have to act with the utmost of integrity. It’s not enough to say that someone makes empty promises if you yourself are guilty of the very thing.

Tribalism, party politics, and rigid groupthink is not innovative and does nothing to unite. How can it? It only seeks to serve those already being served. If the status quo is all we seek, then we will continue on the path we are on. The path of war, divisiveness, racism, anger, inequality, bigotry, and distrust. And we will have Trump, who represents many of these things.

One of the lessons of this election is to step outside your circle, party, and affiliations, and do not settle for what you have. We have to learn to reach out to those around us, especially those from other parties. There is always a way to proceed that offers people who don’t see the world the same way a share in building our world. This is the dream we must seek to fulfill. Be like Christopher Columbus and risk everything for that dream, and you will see your fears are unfounded. Ask anyone who has ever risked everything for some idea or dream, no matter how crazy it seemed, and they will tell you it was completely worth it in the end. It always pays to dream.

#democrats #Trump

crazyexmachina

In the midst of this unreal election season, I’ve seen one message in particular all over my social media feeds: “Hillary may not be perfect, but she’s better than Trump. If you don’t vote for Hill…

In the midst of this unreal election season, I’ve seen one message in particular all over my social media feeds: “Hillary may not be perfect, but she’s better than Trump. If you don’t vote for Hillary, you’re letting Trump win!”

This argument, also known as the “lesser of two evils” argument, is often used by liberals to try to guilt leftists and people of color into voting for a candidate they disagree with on a fundamental level–in this case, Hillary Clinton.

But what most white liberals do not realize is that in this election, the “lesser of two evils” is not as lesser as they might think.

Despite her obvious pandering to young voters of color, Clinton is neither our candidate nor our friend. Clinton is a steadfast supporter of the genocide in Palestine, voted to support the devastating war in Iraq, has demonstrated her anti-black racism on multiple occasions, and the policies championed by herself and her husband under the War on Drugs have left black and brown communities impoverished and incarcerated. Although she has since stated her commitment to racial justice and ending the era of mass incarceration, her actions prove that she is still unwilling to listen to what black people and other people of color have to say. Clinton is not here for us, so why should I be expected to vote for her just because she is marginally less awful than Trump?

I’ve heard a lot of liberal vote-shaming lately, including, “Voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all is such a privileged move.” However, I believe that being able to overlook Hillary Clinton’s record of racism and imperialism is the true privilege. As a queer person of color and a supporter of worldwide liberation efforts from Black Lives Matter to Palestine, I cannot in good conscience vote for Clinton.

Trump’s America is a frightening thought, but black and brown people have been living in the oppressive dystopia that a Trump presidency promises for hundreds of years. The only difference is that now, the rest of America might get a taste of it too.

If Trump wins, it’s not the fault of a few people of color who choose to abstain from voting or who vote for a third party candidate, especially when you take into account the increasing trend of voter suppression for poor black and brown people. It’s the fault of white supremacists and the system of white supremacy that has created Trump and given him a platform.

So what are the alternatives to voting for Clinton or Trump? Of course, there are third party candidates such as Jill Stein and Gary Johnson—neither of whom I necessarily endorse, but it’s unfair to just write them off as a wasted vote. But personally, I believe that this election is a wakeup call that our political system is broken beyond repair.

Revolution will not come from within the system, and no politician will save us. This is something that many of us tended to forget amidst the Bernie frenzy of the primary election.

My friend Nigel summed it up quite well when he said, “Trump isn’t the sickness; he’s the symptom.”

When we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, it is the system itself that is evil.

universalvegan

I felt like I was alone in saying this.

#EndTwoPartyRule

America’s two party system is a political cartel.

https://medium.com/@FrankCastro/american-cartel-how-america-s-two-major-parties-helped-destroy-democracy-84b4660a807b#.l3cql3uz8

#Bernie #Democrats #WikiLeaks #EndTwoPartyRule

twopartysystem-blog

“The whole government, and the Democrat party, the Republican party – they’re all dinosaurs. The principles are dinosaurs. The parties are going to linger because they’re locked in by law. You’re not allowed to compete; the laws are biased against us from competing. If you go third party you can’t get in debates, you can’t get on ballots.”

Ron Paul, November 2012 Reason.com article (via twopartysystem-blog)

#EndTwoPartyRule

twopartysystem-blog

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

Theodore Roosevelt (via twopartysystem-blog)

#EndTwoPartyRule

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

One Planet