The People Versus the Government?

What is more important, personal rights and freedoms, or how the least fortunate among us are treated? I am of course asking this question in the context of government. That is, since it has become blatantly clear as of late that there is a very large portion of the American population that simply do not trust government, one cannot escape the question: If you don't trust government, who do you trust? Yourself? Are you, in your lonesomeness, the only person who can responsibly handle life on this planet? By responsibly, I do mean that all so unpopular concept in America that individuals - even in America - do have some kind of responsibility to attend to the betterment of human kind, to justice, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and so on. So here's my question couched differently: If you are one of those people, perhaps even a Tea Party Patriot, who claims that government is basically nothing more than a noose around the neck of an otherwise productive, smart, responsible, caring people, do you feel that real self-reliance is what you want? If so, what does it look like? Does government have a role at all?

I have heard many people, and some very eloquently, argue that government has never done the people any real good. One could probably make a good argument outlining how exactly the government, particularly in America, has really never done anything but make things worse over the long haul. After all, is has never been the American people who started offensive wars in the Middle East, put people in prison for stupid reasons, went against the Constitution in order to take rights away from people who otherwise had them, or lowered the tax on the rich to the lowest it has ever been. All those things, as examples, have been done by the elected - and sometimes appointed - government of the United States of America. The people, by and large, didn't really have a role in those decisions. Or did they?

Sure, government passed those often crazy laws that clearly benefit the rich over the poor, the White over the brown or black, the man over the woman, and the hard lined capitalist over the democratic socialist. But, it is the people who favor the skinny over the fat, the college educated over the poor high school graduates, the money makers over the laborers, the fashionable over the unique, and so on as it goes down the line. The point I am making here is that most of the social decisions that marginalize people who are otherwise equals, have been made as a society. Racism, sexism, elitism, ageism, and all the other "isms" have never really been mandated by the government, yet it is the government that seems to be getting blamed here.

Now, I come back to my question: What is more important to you, your personal freedoms and rights, or making sure the personal freedoms and rights of everyone around you are also had? What if they are brown? What if they are Muslim? What if they are fat? What if they are women instead of men? What if they are really smart but didn't get a college degree? What if they did get a college degree but you didn't? What if they are not as mentally or physically able as you to live a life free of the help of government or some such entity to help?

I'm not going to say I have the answer. To the contrary, there is a piece of me that agrees with both the anarchist and the socialist. I believe there is a role for the government, and it is to do one thing: Work toward the equality of life opportunities for the citizens who elected it, and to not ruin the environment, ecosystems, or foreign people's ways of life in the process. But therein lies the rub, as Shakespeare would say.

I, like so many left wingers and right wingers, have real doubts about the American government every getting it right. Obama is clearly a stooge of the Federal Reserve and the corporations that really run the country, just like every President in history, with the possible exception of John F. Kennedy, who I would argue was assassinated simply because he decided to really govern, to lead the country, as opposed to do the work of his corporate bosses. Our silly voting system makes it all but impossible to have a real debate in this country about truly important issues, and with all the private money involved in elections it's really a miracle that we don't actually get self-admitted Fascists in the White House. And in general, the people of this country feel entirely powerless against the seemingly endless power of the political and corporate elites.

With all that in mind, it is hard for me, as just one radical revolutionary guy, to be optimistic enough to think that Obama or anyone else is ever really going to do what is necessary to take our country back from the corporate oligarchs, unless the people give the leadership a deal it can't refuse. Follow me? Here's the problem though: Most of the people who are out there now, fully ready to engage in revolutionary rebellion; to actually take on the government and make a true statement against how it is run; to break down the machine as we know it, are all right wing extremists who think that we should go back to some kind of law of nature, where everyone just fends for him or herself. I'm not into that. But, I'm not into the status quo either.

In conclusion, let me say that I, like so many, am thoroughly confused, angry, and in need of direction. Who should I be talking to? Are there revolutionaries out there who are NOT right wing corporate sycophants? Are there revolutionaries out there who are willing to die not for their country but for their dignity as human beings? Where is the revolutionary push toward a society that honors freedom and individuality, but ALSO love for one another, acceptance of our differences, and that is as concerned for the least among us as for those who have made it to the proverbial top?

I don't think I'm advocating anything here, but let me just say that a civil war of epic proportions would make more sense, historically and idealistically speaking, than yet another voting cycle of choosing between two really weak, corporately controlled Presidential candidates next time around. Maybe the United States needs to be broken up, I don't know. Maybe we need to usher in the biggest societal breakdown in the history of man, so that we can rebuild ourselves.

Whatever happens, consider me an ally, as long as we are fighting against corporate, capitalistic, religious, or any other form of fascism. It's not about guns. It's not about color. It's not about taxes. It's about human decency, respect for one another, and the idea that we are the only ones who can fix things. There is no President who can do this for us, nor any government. Hmm, maybe I am leaning toward an anti-government stance, at least until we can take down this one and build a better, more just one.

Thoughts on a Global Pandemic

"GLOBAL PANDEMIC!" Yeah, that's kind of frightening. Especially if one is sitting in a hotel room in Washington DC, the epicenter of governmental paranoia. That's where I was for the first half of this week, Washington DC. There is something really freaky about hearing the words "global pandemic" when you are in the belly of the beast. If I was at home in Saint Paul, I wouldn't be so creeped out by the warnings and the increases in "threat level", because I would still have plenty of control of my own destiny. However, as I sit here in Washington National Airport, minutes before boarding my flight back to Minneapolis, I get the feeling that I am narrowly escaping what could have been an absolutely terrible experience.

When the words "global pandemic" are heard on my hotel television while in Washington DC, visions of spooky government folks sheathed in impenetrable isolation suits rounding people up for some kind of "quarantine" rush through my head. [Shit, a woman right next to me with a baby just sniffed!] The visions remind me of one of those really bad made-for-TV movies that gin up some crazy strain of the flu that threatens to kill everyone on the planet Earth in a matter of days, unless the handsome, but mysterious doctor can come up with the virus in a matter of minutes; most likely this movie has the word "monkey" or "strain" in the title. Anyway, you get the drift. It is always in Washington DC where the spooky white-suited dudes are dispatched, the airport is promptly shut down, and everyone goes bananas because they are basically imprisoned there. Not that I am panicking or anything, but in truth, the more I think about what the world might be like if there was an uncontrollable spread of an extra deadly flu strain, the more I want to get the hell back home.

According to the USA Today, that wonderfully trustful paper that gets left outside your door at every hotel in the country (probably the only paper still bringing in a profit), we are now at a "Level 5" on the "flu pandemic rating system." What does that mean? "Significant human-to-human spread in multiple locations." Level 6 is the highest, which means "human-to-human spread is efficient and sustained." The phrase "efficient and sustained" is extra frightening.

In short, it's a little unsettling to think about what the government can and theoretically do with the ability to just lock folks up because they got sick. The vast majority of the people who would contract and die from some kind of pandemic like this are the very same folks who can't afford the necessary preventative healthcare, and will therefore be only going to the hospital if it is literally a matter of life and death. And that's because they know very well how much the private corporations who run most hospitals are going to charge them for what those of us with medical coverage call "basic services." Nothing exemplifies the disparities between the rich and the poor than uncontrollable disaster or epidemic. The poor are the first to die because they are last to receive and/or seek services. And when they die it is kept quiet, because it is shameful, and everyone knows it, but doesn't want to take on the task of changing that reality. When wealthy folks die from a flu outbreak, the government agencies and private hospitals will immediately snap to attention and get the job done. It's the same reason we don't help Darfur, but we are more than happy to support Israel, or any number of other countries with which we have a special understanding they when we help them, we get some of their resources or can use them to advance American hegemony in the region.

What's all this have to do with the Swine Flu? Simple. It is the job of government to take advantage of every possible situation to advance policies that it sees fit for the American voting public. For the Bush Administration, than meant cutting the budget of the Army Corps of Engineers (what I would argue made Katrina inevitable) and passing any other policy they could that took money away from branches of government that were put together to see to the goal of basic economic justice. And so on, and so fourth. In other words, the government, by its very nature, will set out to advance the agenda that it thinks we the people want, and in many cases, what we the people need, according to them.

Perhaps this will not be a problem with Barack Obama in office. However, I am not convinced that our government is prepared for the worst on this one, and because of that, I do fear what they may end up doing with the additional power they inherit from such a situation, in which they - like the people they will be tasked with helping - are underfunded and over-armed.

In any case, I am very happy to be back home and not at the airport in freaky DC. I don't plan to do a whole lot of hanging out in enclosed, heavily secured and policed places like airports anytime soon, as long as I can manage to stay clear of them. I suggest you do the same. And while you're at it, cover your mouth when you cough, and don't be what our dear friend Seinfeld calls a "close talker."

I sense a new kind of online concert becoming a cool, virtual underground thing to do if and when the "global pandemic" becomes real. "Junkyard Empire, LIVE from the Basement! Log in here!" Hmm. Let's think about this.

A Philosophical Crossroads: Bigger Government Intervention vs. Justified Government Intervention

For the better part of the existence of the modern world, there has been one particular raging debate that has never ceased, though at some times has lied dormant.

That is the debate between those who believe the role of government in a democratic society is to work toward the betterment of the entire society, sometimes at the expense of the individual, and those who believe the role of government to be to ensure the freedom of the individual even if at the expense of the collective good.

I know, it's a very oversimplified version of the argument. However, I don't have a lot of time here, and I want to relate this to the current debate in the House and Senate regarding the "bailout".

Let's just cut to the chase and point out the damn obvious: Those who support the bailout - whether they acknowledge it or not - are in favor of the taxpayer loaning $700 billion to the banks, so that those same banks can then loan more money to the taxpayer, in order to ensure that the taxpayer can continue to buy homes, cars, and whatever else they need to buy in order for this bastardized version of free-market capitalism to survive. Am I wrong? I don't think so. Sure, there's a few things in the bill that are good ideas, like insuring bank deposits up to $250,000 instead of just $100,000, but the poor and middle income people who are more screwed than anyone in this deal could really care less about that. Oh, sure, we are supposed to care because what happens to the rich ultimately affects the poor too, or something to that affect. HOGWASH! Note the government: THE POOR IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE BEEN IN A DEPRESSION FOR A VERY LONG TIME ALREADY! THERE IS VIRTUALLY NOTHING THE WEALTHY CAN DO TO MAKE OUR LIVES ANY WORSE, AND ARGUABLY OUR LIVES WILL GET EASIER IF THE RABID BANKS THAT OFFERED US THE CRAPPY DEBT IN THE FIRST PLACE JUST DISAPPEAR OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH!

Anyway, back to the argument at hand. There are also a lot of legislators and literally millions upon millions of citizens who are dead set against the bailout. In the House and Senate, there are two kinds of "against". The first is the conservative argument against, which is pretty simple and pretty ridiculous and callous - as most conservative arguments are -, and it basically states that the bailout is a bad idea because it too closely resembles SOCIALISM; the "S" word. However, they are sorely mistaken, because under a Socialist government, even a more mild social democrat government, we would be proposing that the banks be taken over by the tax payer, or "nationalized." This is precisely what they have done in Europe as of late, thanks to our shenanigans. In reality, the conservative ideologues should be really happy about this bailout, because it essentially is saying to the rest of the country that free-market capitalism is alive and well, but we just need to give the banks a bunch more money so that you fellas can get richer as a result of further enslaving the tax payers with debt they know they can never pay off. Sound familiar? It should, if you are a modern day conservative. The second argument against the bailout is from the more leftist Democrats like Kucinich, who argue that if the taxpayer is going to be enlisted in saving the economic structure of the country, it should come at a price, and that price should be guaranteed profits from the investments the banks make on their behalf (effectively nationalization)and guaranteed relief for struggling homeowners who were duped into applying for these ridiculous loans they were too ignorant to know much about.

Now, without getting into the debate about whether or not someone with a $30,000 salary should even be trying to buy a $200,000 house, let's just say there is blame to go around here. However, one thing is damn certain: The banks knew everything all along, and yet they still sent the enticing loan offers out to potential home buyers. I personally could build a mountain out of the home loan offers I was receiving in the mail for a whole year after I financed my car. Plus, we are told from the beginning of our lives that owning a home is the dream we should all be striving for. So why not take the loan when it is offered? Anyway, blaming the homeowner for buying a home they were told they COULD afford by the bank is like blaming the poor sucker who bought a crappy car from the auto lot. Both parties are at fault.

Well, I have to go now, but here's my parting thought:

We are at a philosophical crossroads in this country, one at which we must decide what we think the role of the government really is, and this bailout issue is the perfect example. I happen to be of the mind that the fastest and most logical way out of this mess is to spread the money out to the very people who are engine of economy, the workers, the homeowners, the middle class rabble who really make the world go round. I don't see any reason to bail out the very people who have spent their lives making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is not necesarilly bigger government I am advocating for, but a more justified use of the government as a whole. Work to provide for the good of the many, at the expense of the few, first. Then, after we get that on a good footing, we can talk about our next steps.