They are two figures who I greatly admire, yet who disagree on fundamental political policy. They represent two sides of the debate: one the socially conscious progressive movement that values equality, the other the conservative value for less government involvement and greater liberties. If I had them in a room together, could I make them see eye to eye?

Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul both refer to themselves a libertarians. Chomsky, however, doesn’t support Ron Paul libertarianism because he thinks it will lead to the tyranny of corporations. But would that really be the case? I hate to criticize Chomsky since he’s such an incredibly intelligent man, but is he just reacting to a false stereotype of a Republican running on a “small government” platform? I think they have more similarities and common interests than Chomsky acknowledges.

Watch these two videos with Noam Chomsky: One on the political ideology of libertarianism and one with comments regarding Ron Paul’s political ideology and then read the rest of this article:

Noam Chomsky, a popular voice of criticism of current U.S. policy and professor Emeritus at MIT, refers to the potential for positive political change coming from the momentum of support behind Ron Paul. Yet he believes that Paul is subject to what he calls a “fixed doctrine.” One would assume he means the doctrine of the conservative right-wring. But is that really the case? It is important to bare in mind that Paul ran as an independent in the 2008 presidential election, and while he is competing for the Republican ticket for greater exposure and a better chance at winning the election (just like he did in 2008), he is really an independent at heart, who drastically veers from the Republican “fixed ideology.” Perhaps Chomsky is unaware of this?

Ron Paul certainly isn’t buddy buddy with corporations. He has held steadfast in his belief that corporations should be stripped of legal personhood, and that the individuals who run those companies should be held accountable for a companies illegal actions. And corporations certainly haven’t been backing his campaign either. Nor have the billionaire Koch brothers who funded the Tea Party policies that cut spending on social programs. Instead his campaign has been funded completely by small private donations.

Both Chomsky and Paul value greater freedom and genuine functioning democracy. The major difference in opinion lies in the fact that Paul doesn’t view powerful corporations and the wealthy as the enemy to genuine democracy as Chomsky does. Chomsky talks about how powerful corporations live in symbiosis with big government through subsidized capitalism–a process by which for profit companies receive tax dollars to produce things like oil or food. The fact that the government offers this free money is largely what drives the corporate desire to influence and control government. Noam Chomsky prefers a society of liberty and equality over that of corporate control and subsidized capitalism, and this is exactly what Ron Paul aims to do: to restore the free market, and stop paying out subsidies.

Where the two figures really seem to split hairs is on the government involvement in protecting and preserving social equality. The big concern is that corporations will gain great freedoms at the expense of social welfare in Paul’s free market economy. Perhaps this aspect better explains Chomsky’s negative reference to the “fixed ideology” in regard to Ron Paul and his followers. Perhaps he meant to reference the myth that free markets guarantee social equality. Chomsky points out, that Adam Smith notion of the invisible hand only works under circumstances of perfect liberty and equality, which does not exist in the US, and only exists in poor third world countries.

Chomsky is a libertarian socialist, which means he believes it is the governments responsibility to protect and ensure equality of people, which translates into more government. Ron Paul is just a straight forward libertarian, who believes less government will do the trick–that the free market will solve these problems well enough by itself–or at least that’s the way Paul’s critics would sardonically put it. There is one more complex aspect that is missing from Paul’s free-market economic ideology–an idea that modern political theory gives little credit: The idea that it is the moral responsibility of individuals and corporations to serve the social welfare of their communities. Paul makes a good point about how the governments involvement in providing social programs and regulating corporations, has actually undermined simple social responsibility of people for their neighbors, and corporations to their communities.

Both of these men are aiming to solve the same problem, but in different ways. Ultimately I agree with Ron Paul. A government will never be able to ensure equality and fairness, and as soon as government attempts to enforce this equality, it will only create tyranny. Imbalance of power is an inherent part of life, it is the mitigation of power that represents moral commitment that creates community, and no law can create community. Chomsky’s intention is good and the abuse of power is a major problem in society, but it should not be the responsibility of the government to address issues of moral responsibility in the first place. The government should protect the basic rights and freedoms of people as guaranteed by the constitution, but otherwise allow people and corporations to be free.

Although it doesn’t guaranteed perfect equality, people will actually be empowered under a free market system in several ways. If government is small in both size and budget, then corporations really have little interest in gaining subsidies from it, or attempting to lobby for favors. The attachment of large corporations to government itself, makes them all the more powerful, and without it they would loose much of the sway they hold in politics. Paul even argues that government regulations that supposedly protect us from corporate misdeeds, actually empower corporations, since the big companies can afford lawyers to find loopholes. As a result, he argues regulations have a heavier burden on individuals and small businesses. People will no longer expect their government to hold corporations accountable, rather it will be up to people themselves to hold corporations accountable.

Both of these men believe in a return to moral responsibility. Chomsky, of course, is worried that the inequality under a free-market economic system would make corporations less responsible and more immoral then before, making it impossible for people to rise up an challenge their “tyrannical rule”. He believes that corporations and the wealthy would use their power to disrupt the fair democratic process. But Chomsky doesn’t offer a practical way to get to that perfect liberty, and I think Ron Paul has the best practical suggestion. Certainly corporations may continue to exert their influence upon government, and they may very well not live up to their moral obligations, but I believe this would be the impetus for real and sincere social change. And I believe this would return this country to a sense of moral responsibility along with a renewed sense of community.

Chomsky’s fears that America under Paul would be in a state of ultra-nationalism and corporate tyranny are really the result of a stereotype that many people hold against Conservatives, which does not add to the debate. While, Chomsky’s concerns about corporate power disrupting a fair democratic process are legitimate,, I think ultimately, in a free society, we have to accept that power is a facet of social life, it is not always a bad thing either, but that one cannot make anyone, whether it be the wealthy or corporations, into moral or ethical entities. This is the responsibility of the people themselves.

Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 the movie directed by Paul Johansson based on the 1957 novel by free market advocate Ayn Rand.

Along with last week’s opening of part one of Atlas Shrugged, a movie based on the novel by libertarian zealot Ayn Rand, the economic philosophy of the “free market” and laissez-faire capitalism has been receiving a lot of buzz in the political arena. Rand wasn’t the first advocate of the free market, but 60 years after she reinvigorated the idea as a moral imperative her work is still impacting our political and economic discourse today.

This old economic philosophy was the driving force behind the libertarian Tea Party movement which cropped up recently in the midterm elections. They were a conservative freedom-loving group who presented themselves as the sort of down-to-earth and common-sense type folks that ordinary people could trust. And at first, the idea of simply allowing the free market to do its job, may seem to be a pure and simple common-sense solution to a freedom loving people’s complex economic troubles.

Newly elected leaders like Minnesota Governor Scott Walker and Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin are putting the theory into practice in order to confront looming state debts. The idea being that the economic crisis which began in 2008 can be resolved by simply returning the economy to a free market, whether it be reducing government spending on social programs, cracking down on public sector unions, handing over government responsibilities to private corporations or deregulation of the private sector in general.

Rand believed, as Adam Smith did, in the notion of the “invisible hand.” She believed that national wealth production was best achieved through competition based on the motive of a man to make money: the so-called “profit motive.” It worked on the principle that the man who ran the best business and produced the most objectively superior product would make the most money, and would win out in competition, even if it turned that business into a monopoly.

Randites believe that the government should not interfere in the economy. But if we trust in the invisible hand will the country really be heading for a free market solution? Or will Americans find themselves further entrenched in corporate oligarchy?

A sense of growing distrust of large corporations has been growing among the American Public. From the 2008 mortgage and loan crisis, which has been attributed to the intentional and careless gambling of too big to fail banks, to the Citizens United ruling in the Supreme Court which allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political elections, people are beginning to view the influence of large corporations as the greatest threat to democracy.

And there’s a reason for this distrust because the corporations themselves who have acted as the champions of this free market philosophy haven’t really allowed this process to develop freely, in what would be the traditional democratic process. Rather corporations like Koch Industries began funding the election campaigns of people like Scott Walker, in order to get this free market started. But are these corporations really proponents of free markets? Or are they and their political representatives just saying that?

It’s hard to imagine how any large modern corporation came to exist as it does today without special treatment by the government. The U.S. Government feels obliged to subsidize big corporations or otherwise give them special treatment, because these corporations have such a huge impact on our economy. And corporations love subsidies, they love tax breaks, they love money! Even the Koch brothers, the flag-bearers of the Randian free market, the self made billionaires who own the second largest corporation in the country–the kind who like to say they built their entire empire all by the sweat of their own brows–eat the words of their own philosophy by their hypocritical actions.

Photo by freemarketmyass

Protesting the Wall Street bailouts at the Federal Reserve Chicago Board of Trade.

As Rand would say, any moral and honest libertarian should reject attaining influence in government, reject government loans, reject subsidies, and should reject the high taxes that fund those subsidies, because this is the anti-thesis to the free market. These policies create unfair competition, and represent a manipulation of the all-hallowed free market. Yet Koch industries accepts subsidies for cattle and logging. They are even involved in ethanol production, an energy source which they have publicly criticized. But in a letter to reassure their employees they explained that they’d began producing ethanol simply because the government was granting huge subsidies for ethanol production. Koch industries also spent $40 million lobbying the government, a large portion of which went to funding the Tea Party.

So who really believes in the free market? Is it the man on main street who knows he must close his shop, when Wal-Mart moves in offering products at lower prices? It certainly isn’t Wal-Mart, a company which has received over $1 billion in various forms of government subsidies.

Wether you believe in the free market or not, there is a major flaw in our economic thinking. We assume, as a rule of thumb in economics, that larger companies are simply those that have navigated the free market the most successfully, and therefore provided the best quality product to consumers–that they have played the best game according to the incontrovertible rules of economics. But this is a misconception.

In today’s world corporations have succeeded, not based on providing the best product or creating the best business. Instead, they have maximized profit by diminishing quality to lowest acceptable standard, by squeezing wages and by overburdening their workforce. Through these unethical, however legal, policies they have grown and swallowed other companies who could not compete with their harsh business practices. (Rand might have argued, that in a free market the employees would move to the better work environment, but that concept gets thrown out the window when there is a constant unemployment rate and therefore a desperate labor force.) These large businesses, having amassed a sheer size and volume that allows them to manipulate the government, can now leverage demands through lobbying efforts, that the man on main street would never even be able to attempt. And in the case the government did not act to prevent monopolies, corporations could very well acquire power over the people and the government itself because they have no sense of responsibility to the country.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand originally published in 1957 has become the Bible for conservatives, libertarians and other believers in the philosophy of the free market.

Rand might defend her philosophy against this scenario saying that the government’s meddling in the free market has already corrupted the potential for a working free-market system beyond repair, as was the case in her last great novel. She might also mention how her philosophy of Objectivism–the idea that objective standards be used to value a product and a business–has been subverted by huge investments by corporations in the deceptive practice of marketing and advertising. But the country that Rand was writing about 60 years ago, is a much different place now, and it would be thoroughly interesting to see how she might react to today’s world–a world of trans-national corporations, of predatory lending, hedge funds, globalism, neo-liberalism, derivatives trading and out-sourcing.

Although Rand is critical of her country, she writes with a sense of patriotism and admiration of being a citizen in the freest country on earth. And although, she trashes the term “social responsibility” as a means of serving the interests of people who do not work and contribute anything of value to society, a group of people she calls looters, nonetheless, her characters still have a since of responsibility for their society. The fact, that she wrote so much about what she saw was a flawed and disastrous economic system, is good proof of her personal sense of responsibility to her country. Additionally, within the pages of her work, Rand creates an industrial tycoon, who despite being profit-minded, pays his workers a wage much higher than the industry standard. And she creates a railroad Tycoon, who even has so much of a heart to takes charity on a destitute man who has snuck aboard her train. Even Adam Smith, realized the importance of what he termed the “home bias,” that a businessman should prefer to conduct his business within his own country, for the benefit of his own country. But in a world moving full speed ahead toward, neo-liberalism and globalism, these megalithic trans-national corporations have no sense of home bias, of responsibility or loyalty to a country, and their concern for people has diminished. The only thing that hasn’t changed is their motivation for profit.

Of course, to legislate that “sense of responsibility” doesn’t really solve the problem either because this creates a collectivist society by force. This is the evil that Rand was trying to warn people about. And although the concept of a society where everyone works for the common good sounds wonderful, Rand may have been very right about this one thing, it goes against human nature. If we’ve learned anything about democracy we know that people don’t agree, and they may never agree. And clearly, we all know what is in the common good isn’t always in the interest of everybody. The danger in socialism is not necessarily in the lack of motivation that accompanies the inability to make more money then your neighbor, which would be Rand’s argument. It is foreseeable that a society itself could actually profit in one way or another by adopting a utilitarian system of governance, but men themselves would not be free. If it is not inevitable, there is the grave potential that a socialist system leads to the establishment of a virtual dictatorship in order to determine and enforce what is best for the common good. Whether it be a group of scientists or a philosopher king, no dictatorship is a good dictatorship. We have to be free and empowered to act in our own best interest and in the interest of others in a democratic way.

The philosophy of the free market continues to live on because it may very well be the most natural and healthy economic system for a free people, but the free market is not the solution in and of itself. Despite Rand’s very compelling attempt to lay out an impregnable literary canon for the one and only rational economic system, there is no such thing as a pure economic solution. Without a sense of community, without some sense of honor and responsibility to a group of people which contains that free market, then there is nothing to prevent exploitation from being an acceptable component of business.

The question then is how do we restore that sense of responsibility? We must work to communicate awareness and develop a culture of action to reinvigorate our own communities, so that we can act together in unity on the national stage to reign in the ills of a free market on the loose. And if we cannot appeal to the CEOs of trans-national corporations, the very least we can do is work together with the businessmen in our own communities creating sustainable infrastructure, strengthening our own local economies, and investing in local renewable energy sources. Perhaps its naive, perhaps it violates the rules of economics, but this is the best place to begin.

USA, why you support dictatorship?

An Egyptian protester holds a sign that reads, ''No More US $ For The Bloody Mubarak Dictatorship''

Millions of people demonstrated in Egypt’s Tahrir Square in an unprecedented movement for democracy, yet US leaders and US media remain patently apprehensive of a change in government.

The US which purports to stand as a beacon of light for democracy around the world, seems to be holding its breath as this popular movement demands that a dictator step down from power. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can only produce wary criticisms of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak demanding his government make needed reforms.

In an address to the Egyptian people, Clinton implicitly beckoned the Egyptian people back into their homes and encouraged use of the conventional political process to achieve reforms. She said all this while Mubarak’s brutal central security forces were violently breaking up demonstrations. Vice President Joe Biden claimed that Mubarak was no dictator on television just a day before Mubarak began shutting down lines of freedom of speech, first by disabling Facebook and Twitter, later turning off cell phone networks and internet access all together.

After 28 years under the Mubarak regime, the Egyptian people have no reason to believe that Mubarak will produce reforms now. And considering the regime has been propped up by the US Government since it’s inception, the people of Egypt must find the words of US Secretary of State Clinton disingenuous at best.

Rather than stand in solidarity with the Egyptian people in their pursuit of democracy, the US seems to be taking a neutral view on the events unfolding in Egypt. But the real view is anything but neutral. Egyptians know that the US has had a long-standing supportive relationship with the tyrannical Mubarak government. In fact, Egypt is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid because of it value as a geographically strategic ally in the Middle East.

The Egyptian people are fed up with Mubarak’s deference to US interests over the interests of his own people and they are justified in demanding that he step down. The response of US diplomats, however, has made it quite clear that the US is far more concerned about it’s own influence in the region, then being a beacon of light for democracy.

The US not only stands to loose its influential and illegitimate hold on the Egyptian government, but US officials are worried that democracy may actually be dangerous for Egypt! US leaders are afraid that the Muslim Brotherhood will commandeer the revolution. They echo Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fear that this popular revolt could lead to an anti-US Islamist theocracy like the one that was produced in Iran subsequent to the 1979 Revolution. And they’re afraid other nations will follow Egypt in this manner in a domino effect across the Arab world.

But here’s where a good knowledge of history becomes critical–a history that powerful leaders in the West tend to ignore. Long before the Iranian Revolution, the US had its meddling hands in Iran as well. In 1941, the CIA overthrew democratically elected Iranian President Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed the brutal Shah dictatorship in Iran, who oppressed the Iranian people, but protected US oil interests in the country. The Iranian people grew furious with the US control of their government, and it created an incredibly hostile attitude toward the US and it’s allies like Israel and Britain. The result? Iranian anger at the US intrusion of their government fueled conservative Islam and anti-US sentiment in response to the US threat to their country’s sovereignty. And so it’s no surprise, that when the people of Iran finally revolted against the Shah, he was replaced by an extremely anti-US Islamist.

Similarly in Egypt, the US support of the dictatorial Mubarak regime is creating resentment toward the US once again. Would it really be a surprise if a new Egyptian government developed a less-then-friendly attitude toward the US, when US interests stand as an obstacle to their right to democracy? Of course it shouldn’t be a surprise. The US has fueled anti-US sentiment itself by undermining democracies around the world for decades. It’s not because “they hate everything we stand for” as former New York City mayor Ruddy Giuliani would put it, its because we’ve been conniving in their governments for years.

But the Egyptian revolution is an enlightened revolution as compared to the revolution in Iran. It is a popular revolution, and so far is remaining a popular revolution. It’s not a Muslim revolution or an anti-US revolution. The Egyptian people understand, that it is up to them to take control of their government, but first the US must stand aside by cutting ties to Mubarak and allow the democratic movement in Egypt to move forward. A neutral stance in this case, is an opposition stance as long as we continue to prop up a dictator. If the US government continues to support Mubarak and act as an obstacle to democracy then the US should expect to be viewed as an enemy to the interests of the Egyptian people.

It would be an unusual foreign policy move for the US to take a ‘hands off’ policy in the unfolding events, but it is the best move. The US has an incredible opportunity to resolve tensions in the Middle East by demonstrating a measure of good faith and supporting the will of the Egyptian people. As for the potential domino effect of democratic movements and revolutions in the Arab world, this is not something to regard with apprehension. It is the most encouraging development in the Middle East for decades. Perhaps it will be the spark that sends Iranian revolutionaries into the street to end the oppressive dictatorship that has ruled the country as a reaction to the US infiltration of their government 50 years ago.

Photo by Gil Jimenez

I was chastised the other day for using the term “Merry Christmas” on the company website. My director strongly recommended that I update the expression to a more all-inclusive one: “Happy Holidays.” Of course, I well-understood the reasoning behind this recommendation—I was part of a generation of American children who grew up with the Disney Channel not only wishing us “Merry Christmas,” but “Happy Hanukkah,” and “Happy Kwanzaa” as well. Nonetheless, I grew quite frustrated at this recommendation. To me it was just one example of how modern society has disrupted and destroyed culture.

I might say “Merry Christmas,” but I’m not a Christian, and I don’t pretend like Jesus was born on December 25th instead of in April. I’m just partaking in the same cultural phenomenon of winter celebration that began with the pagans, which Christians later hijacked for themselves. Perhaps if I thought into it, I should decide that I’ve been disingenuous, and that I should more appropriately refer to my holiday as Yule or Saturnalia, but I’m cautious to call myself a pagan since that makes it sound like I’m a polytheist that sacrifice’s animals in his backyard, secretly worships idols and partakes in ritualistic orgies.

Christmas, and the communal winter festivity surrounding it, is first and foremost a cultural event and always has been, and when I use the term “Merry Christmas,” I don’t mean to convey any message besides a reference to that shared culture. Yet as we continue to find ourselves disintegrated into institutions and workplaces among people that do not share even this most basic element of culture, our culture is dissipated and our ability to relate and communicate sincerely is disrupted by political correctness. The warmest expression of winter greetings suddenly becomes an actual act of discrimination.

But really, how fair is the use of “Happy Holidays” anyway? Even this secular and acultural expression doesn’t take everyone into consideration. What about my Jehovah’s Witness friends? They don’t celebrate any holiday. If we were really to get serious about nondiscrimination we should prohibit all public communication whatsoever of holiday greetings. It would only be fair that public discourse should be exclusively limited to practical and productive things, and culture references be removed all together.

I may not be a Christian, but I accept the cultural term “Christmas” because that is the cultural name that has come to represent the traditional winter celebration in my culture. The name is arbitrary, just as culture is arbitrary, but culture retains importance and meaning because it represents what a community shares. So as we live in a world where culture is being displaced by the mechanism of a modern and global society that does not recognize community, forgive me if I cling to what little sense of culture there is left.

Photo by Chase Nordengren

Photo by Wesley Fryer

Photo by Lenny

My First Tattoo by Lisa

Photo by Benny Lin

Peace, Hope, Love, Live, Laugh, Joy, Dream, Cherish. These are the words that consitute the new secular dogma. And it seems well enough that these could be words to live by. Oh Peace is a desirable state of things. And Hope is always good. Love is, by far, a necessity. Laughter, of course, is a lovely experience. Who doesn’t want Joy in their lives? What would it be like not to Dream? And, by God, we should Cherish everything we have.

But these words are part of our language, they have always been ours, so why is it that we feel the need to go out and buy effigies of these words to hang on our living room walls to show that we believe in them? What idiocy is this?

The popularity of these “word products,” at first, seems like a rather benign fad. But as with all things that seem innocuous and completely without detriment, there is an unforeseen consequence.

People come to believe something profound in these words. They feel that they are paying homage to the word by acquiring actual effigies and placing them in their home. But words are representations, and by creating effigies of words we effectively separate them from any actual context. These words are extracted from context and given a level of inherent importance and value. The word is taken to represent something good, or goodness itself, which is also a term that means nothing if in and of itself.

Not only are these words no longer in context of actual situations, but they are not even in the context of other words. Hope what? Love who? Cherish what? Live how? Laugh when? Dream what? Peace why?

Words must represent something or at least be associated with something specific, because that is what they are–representations. But these idolized words come to represent nothing, but another representation–the general idea of goodness. They are tied to nothing, and therefore they don’t actually mean a thing. Hanging a word like Hope on your wall is akin to the idolatry that the Bible teaches against.* “See, they are all false! Their deeds amount to nothing; their images are but wind and confusion” (Isaiah 41:29 NIV). These words are hallow like the idols of ancient Israel.

So how can something that doesn’t mean anything end up being harmful or misleading? Well, you can smack the word “Hope” on anything, like a presidential campaign or a business operation or diesel truck for that matter, and though it means nothing at all, it seems to mean that whatever the word is associated with is part of that assumed goodness. While it retains no actual meaning, some people ignorantly believe that any message which utilizes one of these word must be a message of goodness, and so they don’t bother to look at the dirty details.

These words almost seem to be invoked as commandments of the secular dogma, but they can mean very terrible things as well. What is a commandment for Peace, when you must fight for your own freedoms? What’s to stop someone from Hoping their neighbor will suffer ill-fortune? What’s to keep a man from Loving a women who is not his wife? Who’s to say that a hospitalized person in a vegetable state wants to Live? There are certainly times when Laughter can be terribly cruel. Dreams are not without nightmares. Why shouldn’t we enjoy sorrow, when we have lost our Joy? And if we are to Cherish some people, then we must also hold others out of favor.

So these meaningless effigies and these word slogans that people throw about with this noble air can just as easily mean something good or bad. Out of context, the words still mean absolutely nothing, yet by some faint and meaning which people give these words, they are easily lead to believe that something meaningful and positive is being said.

It is this belief in representations and images instead of the actual objects they represent, that has led man astray for ages. And it exists in many more forms of representation than words, but this trend of emblazoning words on walls and pictures, and products, is just a sign of a world very disconnected from reality–very disconnected from context. And the way in which consumers have bought into this worship of words so whole-heatedly is a chilling sign that our society is descending further from the truth into an age of falsity.

*I reference the Bible to support my case in this article. Of course, it is quite ironic, however, that dogmatic Christians who praise the “word” of God are guilty of the same form of idol worship that their holy text condemns.

Photo by Sean Dreilinger

I was out buying a winter hat and some mittens, when I overheard a dispute in the next aisle between a mother and her small child. “But Mom, we have the money,” the boy whined.

Now, I have no idea what it was the boy wanted, but what was interesting to me was the way the mother handled it. The mother was silent. She ignored her little son, who I’d guess was about four years old. It was obvious that the boy had recently learned reasoning skills, and I laughed to myself at the irony of the situation.

“Mom, we have the money.” He whined again, but the mother was still silent. She continued to ignore her son, as if his reasoning had stumped hers. It seem their roles were reversed. The mother was the obstinate one, and the child was the one trying to reason. “But we have the money.” he whined again, but she still refused to answer him.

Now, of course, just because parents have the money to buy something doesn’t mean they should buy it for their children, but this is something that this child didn’t understand, and this was a perfect opportunity for the mother to teach her son this point. But instead, the mother passed it off as a moot point. A point not worth discussing with her son.

Perhaps, she thought it was a point to advanced for her son to understand, but it would be wrong of her to think this. Children have an amazing capacity for understanding, and it is the adult underestimation of children, and the adult’s lack of communication that often inhibits the intellectual growth and maturity of a child. This lack of communication compounds itself and exacerbates misunderstandings between children and parents. Sure, it’s difficult to explain the concepts of money and the importance of savings and budgeting and the fact that you can’t just buy everything you want, but you’ve got to begin somewhere, and the earlier the better.

Some parents feel cursed by these moments when their child disagrees with them. Somewhere down the path of modern society parents have come to believe that parenting is supposed to be a hassle. Our perception of parenting is the Married with Children paradigm. Parenthood and family is supposed to be somehow sentimentally enjoyable while most of it is a pain in the ass, but this is a terrible outlook, which actually detriments how parents will handle a situation before it is presented to them. A parent who thinks this way is likely just to pass most family problems off, saying “That’s just the way it is,” instead of challenging these issues for the better. Some parents just wish their child would behave, and when he or she doesn’t they just accept it as the undesirable reality of parenthood. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

The way I see it, every point of disagreement between a parent and child is an opportunity for development of intelligence and reasoning skills, no matter the age. At the same time, it is a chance for parents to develop a more intimate relationship with their child. Some parents, however, seem to prefer to stifle their child’s reasoning and intelligence, by exercising their power, instead of communicating with their child. In this way, they also stifle their relationship with the child. As a parent, the way of power is the easier way to get things done. Explaining things is difficult and it takes an investment of time. It’s easy just to say “No,” or just to deny a response to your child’s unreasonable pleas. But in this way, the child never develops an understanding of the social experience. He doesn’t develop a close relationship with his parents. He never develops a respect for his parents as people. Instead he only comes to respect the power which his parents represented. But if parents communicate with their children, and respect what their children have to say, even if it is,at times, unreasonable, parents will not only benefit their child’s intelligence and reasoning skills. They will also earn a respect and trust from their child which is necessary to develop a healthy parent/child relationship.

A poster designed to support the American Foundation of Suicide Prevention's 10th annual National Suicide Prevention Day.

“Every 16 minutes someone in the U.S. dies by suicide. Every 17 minutes someone is left to make sense of it.” This message was designed by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention to promote it’s 10th annual Suicide Survivor Day, on Saturday, Nov. 22.

I listen to a radio story about the occasion, an attempt at spreading awareness, but an awareness of the wrong kind. My body shakes like I’ve just been in a fight. The adrenaline pumps through my system. I’m upset and angry, but I’m less upset about the people who’ve committed suicide, then with the way our societies chooses to handle it.

In this radio segment, the suicide victim is deprived of victimhood, and it is handed over to the the dead persons relatives and family, and friends. Yes, I imagine having a close friend or family member commit suicide is a horrible event. But how can we so easily pass over the elements that drove the deceased to kill themselves?

This appropriation of victimhood was no better exhibited then on one Sunday as I sat for lunch at a restaurant. As I ate, I overheard two women next to me fresh from church who were speaking of their troubled children. I discovered that one of the women had moved because her son, who seemingly had everything anyone could have wanted–a nice wife, a house, a good job, and, of course, a loving family–, had committed suicide. The other women, a local, told about how her daughter was a depressed alcoholic. Here these two women were, trying to bond over the pain that had supposedly been caused them. They spoke as two innocent and unfortunate victims, but I couldn’t help but imagine the pain they’d caused their children. I could see myself just how terribly prude and unapproachable these church ladies were. They rested so high on their moral and righteous pedestals, that they were completely lacking in the compassion or understanding that marks an authentic human being.

My aunt told me second-hand that a man from my home town committed suicide a couple months ago. She said, “It’s a terrible thing. Don’t tell anyone, because it’s really not supposed to be out.” I inquired about any the reasons why, and my aunt responded. “I don’t know what the reasons were, he had a good job at a physicians office, he had a wife and two kids. I tell you, there is no reason good enough to kill yourself, when you have a family who loves you. Someone who does that, is just thinking about themselves. They’re not thinking about how they’ll hurt others.”

I can imagine many people raising a toast to something like that being said, but this is absolutely what makes me quake with anger. The modern discourse on suicide is redirected from the heart of the issue, onto its second hand effects. Have we no pity for the dead, who can no longer judge us for lack of it? Do we not care at all, why this man was driven to end his life?

It seems everyone just passes it all off, as a terrible tragedy, a unfortunate occurrence, a statistic, a freak accident, with no actual rational cause. And (must I really say this?) if a man kills himself, he has damn good reason! But instead of recognizing it as the most extreme indicator of pain and suffering that can be expressed and letting it resound thoroughly so it cannot be ignored and must be addressed, we turn to comfort the people who are likely the most responsible for the death. We try to to hush it up. We say foolishly, “Everything will be OK.” “Don’t Cry.” “It wasn’t you’re fault.” But I say let them cry and cry and cry, let their hearts bleed, let them feel every ounce of responsibility, so they will never allow this to happen again.

Don’t mistake me for saying that relatives and friends should bare full responsibility for a suicide. It is not any one person’s fault entirely, and it was ultimately the decision of the deceased, but every single person who ever knew the this person, had a chance to get to know him or her better, and a chance to help him out. You always can recognize the folks who didn’t make any effort at all when they claim they saw no warning signs. This type of person should be considered criminally negligent, especially if they claim to have loved the person. It takes a real loveless soul to ignore the painful emotions that expose themselves as true as day in the human countenance, or to have caused the person to utterly hide or suppress them.

In my opinion if you haven’t done your best to know an unhappy person, and take the time not only to understand the real issue behind it, but to share it as a problem of your own, and to work with that person to help him fix it, then you cannot claim impunity when that person decides to end his life. I do understand, however, that as much as a person tries to comfort a victim of depression, it doesn’t always work. I know first hand.

I have a friend, who has told me on more than one occasion, “If I didn’t have a family that loved me, there wouldn’t be anything stopping me from blowing my brains out.” I have listened to this friend and I have comforted him through the hard times, but no matter what I do, I have been unable to pull his spirits out of the pit. Fortunately, he is still alive. I know this person very well, and I care for him very much, but I can’t be the solution, I can only encourage him to take the steps he needs, and I’ve tried to take these steps with him. But so far, he’s chosen not to.

Suicide is undeniably the ultimate result of the mental illness epidemic that is overrunning the modern world. Over 90% percent of suicide victims are severely unhappy or unstable at the time of their death, according to the AFSP. Of course, the foundation terms it a “significant psychological illness,” instead of unhappiness, but I purposely disuse the term, because it places fault on the individual rather than the society. The same goes for the act of suicide itself where people place the fault on the suicide victim, rather than on the community, the circumstances of which, caused him to end his life. In both cases, we tend to treat the depressed or the suicidal as acting completely irrational, never once, will we even consider the possibility, that depression or self-termination isn’t actually a rational reaction to our society. We couldn’t possibly believe it, but it’s time to change our thinking. that Does anyone recall the suicide rate in East Germany.

Suicide is the sign of the failure of a society (take the startling rate of suicide in East Germany), but it happens so frequently in our society, and we’re so embedded in our traditions, that we are reluctant to find fault with our society, or our way of life, or our traditions. And naturally there is an incredible reluctance for the government to admit any increase in the suicide rates. There is this quibble about the increasing number of people diagnosed with depression as to whether it is increasing or if more cases are just being diagnosed. When the Associated Press reported on increase in calls to the government’s suicide prevention hotline,, program staff attributed the increase to efforts to promote the hotline, rather than an increase in suicidal people.

Really, it doesn’t matter to what precisely we have to attribute these increases, the fact is they are increasing. The fact is it’s a problem, and if it’s not getting bigger, it was bigger than we imagined to start with. But statistics, are incredibly irrelevant to me. Statistics are for legislators and administrators. I know the problem is bad, the subject strikes my locality often. And just with the frequency at which the subject strikes my ears at random, I know the problem is bad:

Let’s not forget the suicidal friend and the man from my hometown already mentioned above, and let’s add to that. When I was in high school my girlfriend tried to kill herself, by swallowing a bottle of pills. Around the same time a boy from the middle school hung himself in his family’s garage. I had another friend who suffered from manic depression. My cousin, was almost driven to suicide after his wife left him. A boy who lived in my dorm killed himself by shooting himself in the head with a pistol. My roommate planned to purchase a rifle from Wal-Mart to kill himself, but I intercepted the gun counter clerks call to inform him that he’d passed the background check. This roommates girlfriend became chronically depressed after he left her. My boyfriend suffered from manic depression, also known as bi-polar disorder. My new roommate was clinically depressed before he came to live with me. The problem isn’t just bad, it surrounds me everywhere I go. And by no means is it to be blamed on solely on any one of these individuals. I myself have been depressed, and in the past I have contemplated suicide, but I’ve been able to reign in my problems because I am an abnormally self-reliant person. But it’s important to notice that I’m just another unreported statistic.

Let’s consider an even more important, but uncounted statistic. The immaturity with which we handled suicide in the modern age has caused an inestimably-skewed under-reporting of suicides. You know, the man from my home town who worked at the physicians office who committed suicide? Well I looked up his obituary in the local paper and there was no mention of suicide. He just “died.” It did not read as it should have appropriately, “committed suicide at Craig’s Crest parking area on Grand Mesa. He was found in his car.” I imagine this omission occurred in deference to his relatives, but who is this omission really protecting? Are we protecting his loved ones, or are we protecting the system and perpetuating the same ignorance that lead to this man’s suicide in the first place?

Now, the AFSP actually has a set of recommendations for the media in reporting on suicides. The foundation suggests not giving prominence to reports on suicide. For example it recommends that stories on suicide not be run on the front page of any newspaper, and that the word “suicide” not be used in headlines. Instead of encouraging awareness of the problem, the AFSP wants to bury it. What they’re afraid of is a trend called suicide contagion, or “copy-cat” suicides. When the media covers a suicide, research has shown that people may be more inclined to impulsively commit suicide. While, this method may help prevent actual suicides it is not at all addressing the overall issue of a suicidal population–the problem of unhappiness.

You see, organizations like the AFSP, don’t actually look to solve the problems that cause suicide, they don’t actually help anyone with their depression, or their lack of interest in life, they just act to prevent people from pulling the trigger or jumping off the bridge. They conduct depression screening tests at college and universities, and direct students at risk to professional help if they appear to be at risk. But I’ve known at least three very depressed people who sought out professional help, and their experience with these professionals didn’t make them any happier, the conversation nor the medication actually improved anything in their lives, sure the drugs made them feel better temporarily, but the role of the health care professional was simply a distraction–an inhibitor of the patients will.

Now, AFSP educates people institutions about depression and mental health in order to prevent suicide, but the population remains just as unhappy. In fact the AFSP has devoted an entire project to the country of Hungary, which has three times the suicide rate as the United States. The AFSP acts in advocating the treatment and diagnosis of depression and other mental illness as a method of helping people. But in all reality, the AFSP is just abetting an oppressive society, by putting unhappy people on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (anti-depressants known by the acronym SSRI), or pairing them with psychologists so that they will be distracted from the natural fruition of their will. This whole prevention process is designed, not actually to help anyone, but solely to keep them from killing themselves. It doesn’t make them any less suicidal, rather it cloaks the terrible suffering of people under a terrible society.

It is in this mindset that AFSP administrators and government officials are led to believe they have reached some great success when the suicide rate has dropped, but where no actual improvement has been made. For instance in Washington D.C. when the infamous Ellington Bridge was fitted with an insurmountable suicide barrier, the cities suicide rate dropped, thanks to absolutely no improvement in quality of life. The project was cited as proof that available means to suicide encourages suicide. Prevention of such suicide was lauded with respect to the statistic that just “10 percent of those prevented from jumping from the Golden Gate subsequently killed themselves.” Once again, less people may be actually committing suicide, but there are just as many suicidal people, if not at increased number with the prevention of their deaths. The problem of unhappiness persists, and it will remain and grow until it is addressed.

There are so many people like me and my friends, who are surviving, but who are not happy. We are all suffering from no wrong-doing of our own, it is the wrong of the institutions and governmental entities, our forefathers and our mothers and fathers. This represents an overall failure in leadership of a people. And we continue to suffer because we have little recourse and few option to act against the calamitous systems of power alone. Despite the challenges we face, let us not forget the real victims of suicide, and the real cause of it.

Today is the day proceeding Election Day and there is no time where patriotic sentiment runs higher. A competition arises between presidential candidates as to their national pride. And a great argument is engendered among citizens as to what vote will most benefit the country.

Senator John McCain’s nationalist slogan “Country First” implies invidiously that Senator Barack Obama won’t put the country first–as if Obama’s proposed “Change” will be a strike against the country. Obama claims otherwise, that his “Change” will strengthen the country.

But I’m rather put off by all the pageantry and this contest for Mr. Patriarch of America. I’m tired of listening to these unctuous politicians and their meretricious monologues about “this great country.” How can any man look out earnestly upon this society and be proud?

How could you overlook the fact that over 2.25 million Americans are incarcerated (2006)? How could you overlook the fact that 63% percent of American children do not grow up with both biological parents How could you not realize what this statistic indicates about the of our countries social health? How could you miss the fact that 9.5% U.S. adults–that’s about 18.8 million people, suffer from a depressive illness , where millions and millions more self-medicate themselves with illicit drugs or alcohol? How could you dismiss the fact that over 32,000 Americans commit suicide in a single year , even where many suicides go unreported due the stigma our culture attaches to it?

Photo by qwrrty

Is it really rational to get so worked up with anger and hate over this presidential election?

We’re fast approaching Election Day, but I’m not rallied behind one candidate or the other. I’m not struck with anticipation for Nov. 4. Would it be a crime to say I’m rather ambivalent?

Presidential Candidate John McCain even visited my home town, Durango, Colorado, just a week ago. It was the first time a presidential candidate had visited Durango in 48 years, but I really didn’t feel the need to hear him speak. What was he going to say that I hadn’t already heard before?

I could have marched outside the gates in protest with an Obama sticker on my forehead. I could have made myself a fancy McCain sign and cheered in the crowd. But I just can’t buy into that nonsense. How absolutely foolish all these folks look in their big white McCain/Palin sweaters and in their SUVs with “Obama/Biden ‘08″ bumper stickers. What kind of persuasive tactic is that anyway? It’s not an appeal to reason, that’s for sure.

Politics is this big absurdity. We all recognize it. We all know how dirty and unsavory it is. It’s about men with money and connections soliciting the vote. They’re not appealing to any noble standard of truth or harmony or righteousness. We don’t vote for a politicians because they are honest, or because we trust them. Its a big game–a tantalizing theatrical performance–where each player appeals to as many people as possible while revealing the least about what they really think. The candidates hand out promises in the form of tax-cuts and energy policies, like handing out candy to children and asking for their favor. In return, American’s vote for the man who promises them the most sugar and the actual direction of the nation as a whole is an afterthought.

As much as the big two candidates stress their differences, really, for all practical intents and purposes, they’re leading American in the same direction–the way it’s been headed for a long time. They only have trivial differences about the best manner to get to the same destination. Obama might offer government health insurance to citizens, which is just one additional step in many taken in the past toward a more socialist government. But McCain wants to establish a New New Deal, but this time instead of socializing the highway construction like Roosevelt did in the 1930s, we’ll be socializing the construction of nuclear power plants. In addition, both candidates backed the final draft of the bailout plan to spend $700 billion in tax payer dollars to rescue the financial industry, which gave the U.S. government partial ownership of many major banks.

McCain and Obama are both behind the continuing expansion of government. When I first heard Obama speak of “Change” I fantasized for a moment that he really meant to challenge the current paradigm of growing government. But I’ve found he represents the same paradigm with a new face and some unoriginal ideas. He’s just a politician. His message and his campaign are not revolutionizing politics. The supposed “fundamental change” he says he is going to bring this country, just isn’t fundamental enough. It’s not fundamental at all! But at least he is straight-forward about his intent to increase government spending.

McCain still speaks of the dying ideals of conservatism, and if I felt he really meant them, perhaps I would even vote for him. I like the “I’m-not-going-to-continue-to-throw-money-at-a-problem” McCain. I like the “freeze-government-spending” and the “I’m-a-Federalist” McCain. But Republicans like McCain will hail free markets, small government and power to the states when everything is fine, and when there’s a predicament like 9/11 or the housing crisis they swipe up unwarranted power and abuse it without a second thought and we end up with the Bailout Plan and the PATRIOT Act.

Whichever way you vote, this country heads down the same path. This is no revolution! Despite this, tensions run especially high between opposing parties. The streets are loose with blue and red zealots. Neighborhoods are split apart, marked overtly by yard signs that might as well read, “We don’t serve blacks.” Idiots from each faction hurl stupid insults at each other. What madness it is to believe so whole-heatedly in any politician! These people look and act like buffoons.

Photo by Bob Bobster

A family divided.

I’m not likely to vote for president in 2008. I’m sure there are folks out their who will hear this and gasp as if it’s an utter sacrilege, but I really think that abstention is the only respectable decision. It’s undignified to cast a vote for the lesser of two evils, especially when they are practically one in the same. And I’m definitely not going take part in this ridiculous political warfare, that divides families and communities.

When it comes down to it, politics is a very limited realm. Only so much can be accomplished with money and power. There is so much more that we can accomplish outside of political systems. It’s time to forgo the presidential rallies; let’s reunite with our neighbors and forget our party affiliations. Let’s take a personal investment in our communities. Let’s have an affect on the people in our lives. This is where real tangible progress is made. In the smiles and the warm embraces of those we love. Let’s have faith in our own power to bring good into the lives of the people nearest us. Whatever we do, we cannot place our faith in politics.

Photo by pixielauren

Original Caption: ''The kids getting candy at the mall in their costumes.''

Last Halloween, I was on my way back from a quick motorcycle trip to Mexico. I took a friend on the back seat down to Puerto Peñasco specifically to escape American culture and get a glimpse of El Dia de los Muertos. Our American ignorance proved unfailing. We were surprised or rather disappointed to find practically no public celebration. Perhaps, that’s because we assumed the day of the dead was the same day as Halloween, when it was actually celebrated on Nov. 1 and 2. But despite that important misunderstanding, we didn’t notice any marketing campaign pushing goods for the upcoming holiday. We didn’t see any skulls for sale in the supermarket or in the candy store. We were surprised to find absolutely no commercialization of the holiday at all.

We left Mexico on Halloween, the day we thought was The Day of the Dead, and on our return trip spent the night in a suburb north of Phoenix called Anthem. We happened to stay in a Howard Johnson across the street from an outlet mall, and when we ambled on over to the mall we found the strangest site. The children of the suburb were all dressed up in costumes, walking door to door with their parents collecting buckets of candy from merchants such as Gap, Nike and Ralph Lauren.

The contrast between Puerto Peñasco, Mexico and Anthem, USA was sickening. The sight horrified me for two reasons. This takes the meaning of a corporate holiday to new far more malignant level. This wasn’t just marketing and clever holiday packaging. The corporations were actually hosting the holiday itself!

Photo by Ken Rachynski

Children in line and in constume for candy at the mall.

What horrified me more, though, was what the event told me about it’s community. This suburb at the outskirts of Phoenix probably hardly existed five years ago, now it was teeming with a commuters and their unfortunate offspring. These people really don’t know each other. There is relatively little that bonds this community together and hence, these inhabitants of Anthem don’t trust their neighbors. So the safe alternative–the only haven of trust–turned out to be the corporations that set up shop in Anthem’s Outlet Mall. Isn’t that just sad? Is it not curious how the increasing disintegration of our communities drives us further and further into a dependence on the corporation?

When I further researched the Outlet Mall, I also found they offered free interactive kids programs on Wednesdays. Now, why do you suppose the outlet mall offers a free interactive kids program? I’m sure they’re marketing manager knows it’s worth the investment. Not only will this “free” class drag parents into the outlet mall, but it will also familiarize a whole group of young potential consumers with the brands of evermore paternal corporations. This terrifying event seems like an event lifted from the pages of an old distopian novel, but this scene is real, and iI’ll bet it’s not an isolated incident. Rather, it’s likely the beginning of a rather disturbing and popular trend where communities spring up in external elegance, numerous conveniences, complex city government and advanced infrastructure, but lack all the innards that make a real community of human beings a cohesive unit.