Zapatista Soap Box

Nader On Biden

2008-08-23T19:53:00.003-04:00

"I doubt that the millions of Americans being pushed out of their homes and squeezed on interest rate payments will want to vote for a ticket with Biden's name on it when he was the one who worked through two presidential administrations to ram this legislation through, first with President Clinton who had the good sense to veto it, and then President Bush who had the moral bankruptcy to sign it."

Click For Full Article

Against All Authority: Revisited

2008-08-23T17:35:00.005-04:00

I agree with nearly all of your points Geoff. I wasn't referring to anarchists in specific but there's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy of bad government when you resort to inaction. If one refuses to vote, so be it. But if one refuses to act at all s/he merely perpetuates a system that favors active participants and especially those participants with money. I wasn't really addressing people of any affiliation... I was actually referring to the loud mouth whiners. You know: the perpetual Bush bashers? Not that there's anything inherently wrong with bashing one of the most incompetent American presidents of all time, but ad hominem attacks without substance or detail tend to be drawn from ignorance. Basically, I don't care so much if you don't feel like voting or supporting any of the candidates. I do care, however, that you act in some way if you feel the need to let me overhear your self-righteous rant against society and government while you're standing in line behind me at Starbucks. Start a nonprofit, a study group, hold teach-ins, become a politics professor, do SOMETHING. Political nihilism is the worst form of cowardice. The stakes are high, but non-fatal. These kids would do more damage to their bodies by skateboarding than by rejecting apathy and embracing some form of participation be it orthodox or otherwise. You (and I'm sure the people you thought I was referring to) are of an entirely different caliber than the people I was actually referring to. Just a misunderstanding.

A Response to "Against All Authority"

2008-07-12T12:07:00.002-04:00

It is true, Nick, that many activists today dismiss the entire system as "broken" or "corrupt," and thus often espouse a certain apathetic or nihilistic attitude towards our political atmosphere. But I don't think it's fair to label these people as "armchair activists." You made a point, a very good one. The fact of the matter is that our government has strayed so far from the principles it was founded upon that it has taken on a completely new (and utterly hideous) form.
Federalism today is a joke, because local and state governments have to appeal to a powerful and well-resourced federal government for funds, complying with every single federal mandate in order to scrape together a budget. In this system, there is no avenue for meaningful regional differences between states or communities, because these governments have all been whipped into complying with the federal agenda. Just look at the way the drinking age was set up. In 1984 Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, partly because of the massive lobbying efforts of MADD and other groups. Congress then used the Federal Aid Highway Act to force states into raising their own drinking ages to 21, with states that held out losing out on all federal highway funding. Eventually all 50 states declared it illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase or publicly consume alcohol. Essentially, ever since 1776, power has slowly been shifting upward. Everyday voters recognize this, and this is one of the reasons that less people vote in local elections than they do in the presidential elections. In the end, they feel like there's just no use, that's simply the nature of the beast.
Now, acknowledging that our current political system is misguided, why should we still adhere to it? In keeping with your springboard analogy, why the hell would you keep using a springboard that's obviously broken? For this reason, I think that non-participation in the system can actually be a morally justified, and even heroic, act.
Another issue I have with your post is the manner in which you seem to conceptualize authority. You write that there needs to be "more authority over authority," but isn't that an oxy-moron? Why have any sort of recognized authority in the hopes that you can "reign it in" and coax it to occasionally respond to your personal wishes? Right now, we pay members of Congress more than 150,000 dollars a year to make our decisions for us. WHY?! To refer to the Paine quote, why should anybody "bear the fatigue" of their government when our government is supposed to be made up of "civil servants" dedicatedly attending to the issues that matter to their constituents? It is in forgetting this, that governments are supposed to obey their people, and not vice versa, that we run into trouble. The above points are central to anarchist (which I'm fairly certain is the group you were referencing in mentioning shoplifters and law breakers)ideology in the US today, and I think their relevance does in fact justify adopting an attitude of contempt to the overall "system."

Break Away

2008-07-07T13:01:00.002-04:00

Okay people, since ProperGanda is going legit and since we're filling out paperwork that requires us to stay politically neutral as an organization, this blog is going to be a separate entity. Renamed "Zapatista Soap Box" by our good man Ryan, the blog will be the leftist supplement to the politically neutral ProperGanda for those who are inclined to hear us out. Expect updates this week!

Fourth of July

2008-07-05T00:31:00.002-04:00

I know I'm a bit late, but I thought it would be nice to pay homage to one of the many pillars of the American Revolution and one of my personal heroes: Thomas Paine. So, for those of you who'd like to learn a little more about this lesser-known revolutionary, here are a few sites you can skim:

Wikipedia: Thomas Paine
Brief Biography
Books/Pamphlets By Paine (Includes Excerpts)

For those of you who haven't already read it, I highly recommend his pamphlet entitled "Common Sense." It's a quick read and you can pick it up at any book store for under ten dollars.

A Response To "Paradox of Intervention"

2008-07-03T15:17:00.001-04:00

Ryan has responded to Mike's "Paradox of Intervention" over at our message boards! Check it out here

Against All Authority?

2008-07-02T06:58:00.002-04:00

Typically the activist left begin their political journey with a significant amount of rage and naivety. Understanding the basics of how things "should" be and comparing them to how they are can be quite frustrating for a bleeding heart. The initial response is normally a black and white perspective of the situation. A cause and effect outlook. "Things look bleak because the government's corrupt." Using this as a springboard, well-intentioned and terribly ignorant newcomers to the political scene fall victim to political nihilism. Unsatisfied with the state of the world and unable or unwilling to devise a solution, these nouveau-activists point fingers, name names and ultimately create a self-fulfilling prophecy through what amounts to salutary neglect. In other words, they don't like the answers provided by authority nor do they want to bother trying to solve the problems themselves. Often times they'd rather shoplift, curse out their teachers and make their mothers cry. Yes, I'm generalizing and yes I'm talking about a very specific group. I'm doing so to make a point.

While many argue that what this country needs is less government, less rules and less authority, I will continue to argue that we need simply to redistribute so-called "Big Brother." The problem isn't so much that there is too much authority, rather that there isn't enough authority over the authority. Let me explain. This country was definitely founded on the principle of natural rights: life, liberty etc. This country was also founded on the principle of oversight. That being said, there is a huge disparity between the amount of oversight for the commonfolk as compared to the politicians. Federalism and a system of checks and balances serve a very distinct purpose in this country: to prevent any one person, branch or group from exercising too much power. If in sports a player breaks the rules and the referee turns a blind eye, do we scrap the sport entirely? It's preposterous, then, to presume that the solution for corruption in politics is to scrap "the system." Allow me to quote my hero and one of the many people responsible for the culmination of liberal ideals upon which this country was founded: Thomas Paine.

“Those who want to reap the benefits of this great nation must bear the fatigue of supporting it.”

The point is, essentially, you get what you get and you don't get upset. We can be armchair activists and bitch, moan and complain day in and day out about our "system" and the "sheep" who continue to vote for the "crooks" who swindle us out of our freedoms or we can say to ourselves "what now?" This is our springboard, broken as it may be, and we don't have a choice in the matter. So you can listen to your nihilistic punk and guffaw at the "sell outs" who actively participate in our political processes or you can be a part of something bigger than yourself and lend us a hand. You can be the generation of politicians who (mostly) aren't crooks. You can be the generation of activists who fall away from divisive party lines and work as true humanitarians. Or we can let this country fall further and further from its original intentions because I can guarentee you that those greedy crooks who act only out of self interest are more motivated than you know. People in that vein will stop at nothing to succeed and it will require the strength and character of a people united to stop them in their tracks.

Hasta la victoria siempre.

The Paradox of Intervention

2008-07-02T01:13:00.005-04:00

Over the last couple of years, the international human rights community has been confronted with several difficult situations. Two of which are the crisis in Darfur and the situation in Myanmar. The true quagmire is how to go about alleviating the internal pressure in Sudan and Myanmar in a diplomatic and peaceful manner.

Whenever these types of situations arise, it is imperative to try and find the most coherent logical solution to the specific scenario. In many cases, choosing just one option is not only difficult, it’s impractical. No matter what solution a diplomat or world leader chooses, it is imperative that they consider not only the end result, but also how they get there.

When intervening in a human rights crisis, it is important to judge how the people in power will react to any action that is essentially against their interests. Above all, the decisions made must ensure that the conditions of the people in the country in question are not made worse as a result of outside intervention.

In the past world leaders have turned to diplomacy to try and alleviate human rights crises. The theory behind this approach is to try and find common ground with those in power in an attempt to halt their actions. This may result in the leaders of the tyrant state demanding resources such as oil or natural gas, or in other cases, monetary incentives to halt their actions.

No matter what the tyrant chooses, the international community would expect to pay the money needed to basically bribe the tyrants. As rare as this may be in our world today, this happened somewhat recently in North Korea, when it was agreed with others in the international community to pay the North Koreans subsidies of oil so they would halt their nuclear production. Although this isn’t within the human rights scope it is a good example of how tyrants use these situations to get what they want.

Another peaceful method of intervention is the use of economic sanctions, a risky topic on its own. Although this is deemed as a very effective way of “stopping” a leader, the practice is just a drain on the economy. This drain, however, affects those with the least money first so, as a result, the situation for the common person, who the international community is trying to protect, worsens. Some people of far left political ideology, such as Noam Chomsky, have dubbed this practice “economic terrorism.”

In hind sight, this practice accomplishes its goals, to derail the tyrannical government. The problem that once again arises is at what cost was this achieved. An example of this is Cuba; the people of Cuba have suffered harsh economic sanctions for nearly fifty years. Today, the Castro regime is still in power, and the people who are suffering the most are those in the middle and lower classes. These Cubans suffer because the Cuban government doesn’t have the necessary materials to fix the transportation system and the utility systems and cannot provide a substantial amount of agricultural goods to the poorer classes in the economy.

Aside from these peaceful manners of intervention, force is the only other option available to a world leader. The most brutal use of force is a direct invasion of the rogue state, which has many negative ramifications. Although it may be the fastest way to solve the problem (only if done correctly and coherently), its negative effects are far and wide.

Whenever a country goes through an armed conflict, there is always a refugee crisis as people try to flee the country and the violence. Additionally, the weapons used by the military and militias often destroy or damage infrastructure and utilities which need to be rebuilt. This forced change, in some instances, opens up the opportunity for guerrilla groups to attempt to seize power thus causing an insurgent effect within the country. Situations such as these can go awry and end in international catastrophe affecting the region around the country and, in rare instances, the global economy.

The other way to use force against a tyrant is in a much more secretive manner. This has been used countless number of times by the United States government over the last sixty years; this is the use of the CIA, or another similar agency, to undermine a regime through what is essentially contra activity. In most cases, this works, it achieves its proposed goal, to oust a leader and implant another. The most notable failure, however, was the attempted overthrow of the Cuban government in 1962 with the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Although this practice may seem to be a positive prospect, many times it results in the insertion of a leader that ends up being a tyrant (such as in Guatemala, 1954).

No matter what road the leaders of the world decide to take on Darfur and Myanmar, it will have its positive results and its outright negative results. This is the paradox of the situation, no matter what action is taken, something negative will come about. The complexity of international relations is something that the average American, sadly, is unaware of. Please, educate yourself.

Affirmative Action

2008-07-01T23:30:00.003-04:00

Affirmative action refers to America's legal mandates set in place to give disadvantaged minorities better access to education and employment. Proponents of affirmative action argue that it is a necessary vehicle to help the targeted communities rise above the social, political and economic repression that has hounded them since the founding of our nation. Opponents believe that even if minority groups have been historically oppressed, the civil rights movement has given them all the opportunities needed to escape poverty. Therefore, anyone who is not successful has no one to blame but themselves. Opponents also often view affirmative action as reverse discrimination. The arguments for and against this policy have truths and fallacies.

There should be no questioning that minority groups have been oppressed throughout America's history. Blacks were stolen from Africa, subjected to slavery, and emancipated without any form of a safety net to help them adjust to society. Native Americans were subjected to a genocidal extermination campaign, put through brutal assimilation programs, and forced onto a few small, poor-quality plots of land now known as Reservations. Other minority groups have suffered ill-treatment as well, from poor labor conditions to internment camps.

There should also be no question that the poor conditions present in many of today's minority communities have been fostered by these such historical trends. And even though a great deal of freedoms have been granted universally to the American people, minority communities still suffer from a torn social fabric that contributes to high rates of crime and drug and alcohol abuse. Also, political and economic forces that are outside of the communities' hands still work against them (lack of investment, little land ownership, few employment opportunities, rampant racism, limited access to health care).

We should not forget, however, that many of the aforementioned hardships affect poor white communities as well. We should also remember that there are many middle- and upper-class minorities. Unfortunately, the American conscience is quick to take race into account but slow to consider class issues. In effect, racism is a problem because it degrades minorities to a lower-class status. Therefore, the opportunities created by affirmative action should not be accessible to those minorities who have already successfully climbed the class ladder; they should be accessible only to those who can't reach the bottom rung. If poor whites are affected by much of the same problems that affect ghettos and reservations -- with the exception of racism, of course -- the benefits of affirmative action should be extended to them as well.

A class-based form of affirmative action would be a program that would help the most poor and historically oppressed minority groups -- but not exclusively. It would be colorblind in the sense that it would not be designed exclusively for minorities. But at the same time, no class-based program can be considered colorblind because of the intricately wound relationship between class and race in America. Reforming our affirmative action in this manner can satisfy both sides of the current debate. (Except for libertarians.)

"Free" Trade

2008-06-02T07:54:00.002-04:00

In mercantilism, a positive trade balance is representative of a country's power. Harnessing manipulative economic policies, nation-states hustle to gain the biggest slice of the proverbial pie. The basic principal behind this was the concept that capital is fungible. That is, amassing a great deal of wealth translates into a powerful army and therefore a greater stance in the global community. After World War II, however, it became increasingly obvious that free trade held significantly more benefits than the antiquated "king-of-the-hill" mercantilist theory. Comparative advantage (a trade principal which argues that economic interdependence benefits all parties) not only resulted in greater wealth but theoretically a reduction in the very nationalism that fueled the War to end all wars.

Thank goodness we've taken a step away from the cutthroat, self-serving tactics which destabilize relationships between countries and perpetuate an "us" versus "them" mentality... Oh, wait. If the trade we have in the world today is "free" then so too is Myanmar. While WWII saw the Axis and the Allies, the 21st century will see circles that share political values and goals. Countries are stepping away from global agreements and towards smaller, more easily influenced regional agreements where powerful countries are better able to get their way (NAFTA). Countries such as China will dilute their currency to artificially inseminate their country with a positive trade balance that may benefit power-holders but damages their citizens as well as their ties to countries with similar exports. Subsidies for American neo-farms (which, by the way, are a far cry from the barns and stables we tend to picture) allow copious amounts of harvested food to be wasted all in the name of protecting crop prices... That's right, protecting. As in, protectionism! What is free about these manipulative economic policies that destroy the working class base of export-reliant economies? One can argue that America is not export reliant, but consider the vast number of jobs that get exported by American companies...

Proponents of fair trade are not necessarily opposed to free trade. It is the age old argument of nomenclature against nature. We can call it "free trade" all we like, but in essence it is nothing short of neo-mercantilism. We ask not for the abolishment of free trade, but rather the establishment of truly free trade. If not that, then trade that more justly benefits the many rather than the few. Trade that encourages interdependence and peace rather than hostility and factions. Above all, trade with convictions about wages, working conditions and the population that, without which, the upper-crust would undoubtedly be lost.

The Olive Branch

2008-05-15T12:45:00.007-04:00

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," he added.

Where do we begin? The president has obviously narrowed the field of options presented when confronting an enemy diplomatically. Reducing the world to black and white in classic Bush fashion, he asserts that the only possible outcome of diplomacy is that "they" win. Let's set aside the fundamental reasons for violent extremism for one second and simply dissect diplomatic relations in a general sense. When, in an American court, the accused is given proper representation and the right to defend his or herself the outcome hinges solely upon the strength of the defense in opposition to the argument presented against the defendant. In other words, the defendant can be found innocent, or guilty to varying degrees depending entirely upon the deliberation. We do not (often) kick down the doors of the accused and beat them mercilessly nor do we roll over and concede their innocence simply by allowing them to speak. What is it about listening that makes it a losers folly? When in this world, and this country founded on freedom did it become "game over" simply to hear an opposing argument? Does the acknowledgment of a conflicting belief intrinsically validate it?

Regarding terrorism: violent measures are often pursued by those who feel politically marginalized. If the "system" worked for disparate voices, means such as I.E.D's and suicide bombing would be impractical and unnecessary. This being the case, how is it a sound solution to marginalize on a global scale those who already feel cornered in their own community? We must not fall victim to the association of one with many. In other words, we must not say that because Osama Bin Laden is maniacally bent upon the destruction of the west that all terrorists and extremists are as well. Many are caught up in a power struggle, foolishly driven like pawns as a result of religious fanaticism (fancy that). Seeing the detrimental effects of poor western policies (harsh sanctions after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait which directly resulted in the deaths of 1,000,000 Iraqis), many who joined the call did so for the same reasons Americans enlisted after 9/11. This does not suffice to justify the inhumane tactics harnessed by terrorists, but serves as the source of resentment: the eye of the storm which we must understand in order to quell. In fact, the sanctions placed upon Iraq were done so with the exact black and white mentality being used to justify the current war. Hard headed power-plays by uncompromising money hoarders.

"A reaction might take place as a result of the US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians."

"As for their accusations of terrorizing the innocent, the children, and the women, these are in the category of 'accusing others with their own affliction in order to fool the masses.' The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere. A few examples of this are seen in the recent Qana massacre in Lebanon, and the death of more than 600,000 Iraqi children because of the shortage of food and medicine which resulted from the boycotts and sanctions against the Muslim Iraqi people, also their withholding of arms from the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina leaving them prey to the Christian Serbians who massacred and raped in a manner not seen in contemporary history. Not to forget the dropping of the H-bombs on cities with their entire populations of children, elderly, and women, on purpose, and in a premeditated manner as was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

"We do not mind establishing a long-term truce between us and you."

“We treat them in the same way. Those who kill our women and innocent, we kill their women and innocent, until they refrain.”

These quotes by Osama Bin Laden succinctly display the issues that terrorists have with America. While this does not at all rectify the atrocities committed by extremists, it is a concrete definition of the problem for which we must find the solution. While the events of 9/11 and the use of suicide bombers are both entirely unreasonable, the causes for such an angry and determined mindset are not at all. In fact, America would not be at a loss to shed the dark persona of it's past. I am not purposing a comprehensive solution. Honestly, we'd be hard pressed to know what one would entail without directly conversing with "the other." But mutual destruction is ensured should we continue to "douse violent flames with gasoline."

Under Construction

2008-04-28T10:59:00.000-04:00

Be back soon!