Bits For Rent

Though I have been trying to steer myself away from too much political blogging, I believe that the current situation in Iran demands a closer evaluation from all free citizens of the world. What we are witnessing in this country, to me, is something beautifully human: a massive uprising from within an oppressed nation that is both peaceful in nature and ruthless in its accusations. It is millions of “free” citizens crying foul at their government, demanding justice and due diligence from a body politic even the United States dares not trifle with. For the first time since perhaps the Second World War, or maybe even the Bolsheviks, we are looking at what may be the start of a political revolution.

I say “may” because, as is the case with any authoritarian or totalitarian state, the workings of government are not as cut-and-dry as we Americans are accustomed to. Censoring, silencing, and propaganda will and have already played a large role in how the Iranian government subverts any public resistance to its “election” and enforces its own will. However, governments are ancient, slow-moving institutions not designed to handle the lightning-fast pace of modern technological innovations, and any dragnet laid by Iran over the voices of its people will almost certainly be subverted or penetrated by those with the power and the will to tell the free world their side of this story. China has been dealing with this fact for years, and in several cases has even conceded some liberties back to its citizens which it had previously tried to withhold. Still, we cannot expect miracles; Iran will do whatever it can to keep foreign powers from meddling in this situation, and its best chances of accomplishing that goal are to limit the flow of information out of the country as best it can.

I also say “may” because Iran has already proven it is more than willing to use violence to coerce cooperation out of protesters should they not submit to “reason”. If there is an official death count being kept by their government, you can bet your ass we’re not going to be seeing it anytime soon. If we do, the Iyatollah will clear out his cabinet so fast that even Stalin would blush. Put simply, these guys ain’t going down without a fight. This isn’t the French monarchy being overthrown, by the vicious, starving masses. This is shaping up into a battle where the side who has more to lose will be the victor, and right now the Iranian government is the one with the greater look of desperation on its face.

But that’s the great thing about political revolutions and upheavals — the longer they are drawn out passively and without violence on the side of the dissenters, the more righteous that side becomes. The Iranian people protesting need to know that time is on their sides: the longer this goes on, the more time they have to possibly unearth the truth, win over foreign interests to their cause, and force the government to play nicely as the entire world watches with keen interest as each day’s events unfold. Like Obama said in his speech, quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Ultimately, whether it be 10 days or 10 years from now, there will be a reckoning for any wrongdoing that may have occurred in this “free” election. The course of nature will ensure this. However, it falls to us, and the Iranian people specifically, to keep the signal fires burning for all to see, so that what has transpired does not find its way swept under the large, smothering rug of history and human disinterest.

But what of our part in this wonderful bit of Iranian Kabuki Theater? There have been cries for our president to take stronger action against Iran, to involve ourselves in the settling of this civil dispute. Personally, I feel that there is no course open to us other than the one we are currently on. Let’s draw an allusion, here. Imagine you are walking through a crowded pubic park and you happen to catch, out of the corner of your eye, a mother slapping her child for something you didn’t see. Regardless of whether the child deserved to be hit, you feel inclined to take action. In America, we know that we are not going to be able to just walk up and punch out the mom while saying, “have a taste of your own medicine, bitch!” It just doesn’t work that way. However, we would be perfectly fine with addressing the mother by saying that it is wrong to strike a child and surely she can find a way to reprimand her children without violence. If the mother is truly abusive, we can notify the police and have the situation resolved by a judicial power that has jurisdiction over something such as child abuse. Ultimately, though the matter may be of our own concern, it is not within our rights to take direct action in response to it.

Now say that the mother is Iran, the child is its people, and America is the bystander. The only major difference between the allusion and reality is that America does not have a police officer to report the wrongdoing to — the United Nations lack jurisdiction over governing bodies and can do little more than a crowd of people would be able to do towards the mother in the story; i.e., it could badger her into submission but mostly just stand there and say, “How could you?” in a really accusatory tone. This is the situation that our president finds himself in, expect in his case the mother would also have a nuclear weapon in her purse. At best, all he can or should do for Iran is let them know that we support the righteous act of seeking justice, and that America is the ally of any party or person pursuing such actions.

As I am a fan of drawing allusions today, I also found it interest that what Obama is faced with now is in some ways not so different than what John Adams was faced with during the first throes of the French Revolution. Back then, Adams was reluctant to rush to the side of France in usurping the monarchy because the nation was still young and reeling from its own violent birth. Also, it would have more than likely shattered ties with Britain, who had become a key trading partner in the late 1700s. For Obama, to side with the dissenting citizens in Iran would be to endanger our already perilous position in the Middle East, to draw the ire of yet another government on the verge of nuclear capabilities, and to cast Americans into yet another foreign war of independence that would put our soldiers in harm’s way and burden us with yet another country to restructure in a region where public opinion of us tends to run rather cold. If Korea and Vietnam weren’t enough proof in the past, the quagmire of Iraq most certainly is. To those of you demanding swifter action and a more hawkish response from the president, I say stay your sabers. There is much yet to gleaned from this fallout, and the one who looks before leaping is almost guaranteed to be better off for it. So watch, wait, and — most importantly — remember what happens next. It could be a long time before you ever see something like this happen again.

Addendum: I don’t know why I bother writing sometimes, especially when the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan says it all so much better than I ever could.

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of loans–and groans–and politics–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”

When America was formed by the founding fathers, it was never intended to be run by politicians from a warring two party system. In fact, our first two presidents, particularly George Washington, abhorred the ideas of “party lines” and dividing the populace between those who supported states’ rights and those that favored the power of the federal government, or even between those that favored slavery over those that did not. First and foremost, we were all Americans, and that truth–in the minds of these great men–was the one and only factor a political party should ever concern itself with. Alas, we barely made it through a decade before it was clear such a wholesome, united vision of America’s future would be cleaved in two: the Federalists falling to one side (and soon to perish entirely) and the mighty Jeffersonian Republicans on the other. The rest is, as they say, history.

The question I propose now is thus: if the unified party structure was truly so deficient in its ability to represent the will of the people that we had to create a schism clean through to the foundation of our republic (i.e., down to the men who fought for it), why were the originators of this great and lasting (fingers crossed, right?) body politic so keen on sticking to it? Were they blinded by the discontent of the southern states — some of whom had gone begrudgingly into war with Britain when talk of independence first sprouted — who wanted nothing more than to keep to themselves and their cotton fields and large plantations, thank-you-very-much? Perhaps they simply shrugged off the complaints they heard over the taxes and tariffs from those states, knowing in their hearts that they were steering the country on the correct path — away from foreign wars and towards control of its own borders — and that the southerners, just like anyone else, could never truly be satisfied with any concession given to them. (The old story of giving a moose a muffin springs to mind.) But could these noble patriots really have the gall and audacity to give their compatriots the cold shoulder “for the good of the country”?

The answer, I think, is that they were, in fact, worried about the demands of the south and the dichotomy of life in the northern, industrial states versus that in the southern, rural states. With a nation so young, having just finished a war for its own independence, could the government withstand infighting much less appeasement of each and every embittered male landowner? No, I do not think so.

The situation is not so very different today. Our government must choose to punish some (the wealthy, the landowners, the elderly, and more importantly the auto industry), while aiding others (the union workers, the lower class, the unemployed, etc.) in what are ultimately small steps in a very large plan to salvage our economy, as well as our nation, from the perilous decline which has shaken the great powers of the world to their cores.

Do I think that Obama is the same as Washington or Adams, struggling to keep our nation out of conflicts while wrestling with the demands placed on him at home as well as abroad? Not entirely. Obama has inherited a war, not avoided one (a la Adams), and if anything his speeches last November should lead us to believe that more conflict, not less, will be in our country’s future as we fight to restore peace (or rather the facade of peace) to countries in the Middle East and crush the Taliban before it can ever again bring harm upon innocent lives. I think there is a dormant aggression in our new leader that many choose to overlook, or even ignore. A man does not get to become President of the United States with sweaty hands and knocking knees; there is a ferocity hidden in even the most tame of democrats (though Van Buren was a bit of nancy boy). Woodrow Wilson, for one, despised war and believed adamantly in the power of diplomacy to resolve disputes (he set the standard for rulers of today, some argue), but still lead our country valiantly to the defense of France and Britain in the First World War. In fact, I think Obama has inherited many traits from his democratic ancestor, including that passion for diplomacy and a strong versing in literature and oratory. But that is a subject for another, very different blog post.

What moves me today is a concern for the divide spreading through the heart of our country. More and more, Americans are picking sides in a war of words and opinions and they are being fueled on by the inflammatory and outrageous political media. If you were to talk to a moderate or conservative American citizen today, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that they would express some sort of opinion that the media tends to lean to the left and that it is in some way rotting away the values of our nation, perhaps even harming our children. My counter to these claims is, of course, that for every wrong or falsehood expounded by a “liberal” outlet, there is an equally wrong claim from Fox News. For a station that began its tenure under the slogan “fair and balanced” — a campaign they still use today, if I am not mistaken — to be so boldly and daftly conservative in its news coverage, I would say that either someone needs to calibrate the scales or Rupert Murdoch is laughing all the way to the bank. But it is too easy to sit here and criticize a media outlet for doing its job in what I must confess is a very effective manner. Fox News, for good or ill, provides a service that people of certain persuasions find entertaining if not informative, and no different can be said of the other cable news channels such as CNN and MSNBC. It is not the messengers that I have my quarrel with, for they can poison both sides if the viewers are not discerning enough. No, my fight is with you, the people.

Let’s wind the clock back a bit, first.

Thomas Hobbes, a famous philosopher, originated the theory of the Social Contract. In short, this theory claims that before humans enter into what we would call a society, there is an agreement, or rather a concession, made by all involved parties to abide by certain principles and forgo certain civil liberties. For instance, we can say that as a society we will continue to work for our own selfish interests (e.g. money, cars, women, booze) and not for those of a collective (communism lost the war, remember?), but at the same time we won’t kill our neighbor if they happen to borrow a pair of hedge clippers without asking. Even though that guy with the dachshund throws really loud parties on weeknights and your pretty sure he’s stealing cable, you leave him alone because that’s what society demands of you. Now here’s the rub, which Hobbes was also cognizant enough to point out (unlike some other philosophers like Kant who just believe they’re right and don’t address arguments): even though we are taught and/or forced to restrict these desires by the social contract, it does not remove them. In other words, you can’t take the jungle out of the tiger. So while we can all line up at the voting booths each November and be cordial to one another as we submit our ballots and walk off with the firm belief that our candidates will be the winner, the truth is many of us could quite easily turn these “civil” elections into far more barbarous occasions. In America, we often hear the social contract referred to as “the Christian thing to do,” or something similar; irregardless of the title, it is clear that logic and education are what keep civilized man civil — if you want to call it God, well, that works too.

But what happens when we remove the contract, or God, from the equation? (Yes yes, He is omnipotent and omnipresent, I know, just play along.) Well, it just so happens there are many such examples of this transpiring in human history, some of which you’ve probably heard of (Nazi death camps, the battle of Little Big Horn, pretty much all of the crusades). So let’s pick one you may not be familiar with.

On July 2, 1816, a French frigate by the name of Medusa was shipwrecked off the western coast of Africa. The ship has run close along the shore and, despite warnings from the crew, the captain proceeded farther and farther into the shallows until the ship at last ran aground. As if the situation were not horrific enough for the passengers, the Medusa had been grounded during a spring high tide, making it very hard to re-float the frigate. To exacerbate the problem, the captain refused to remove the ship’s cannons, weighing over a dozen tons a piece, and so after vain attempts to dislodge ship from sand, the crew began preparing to abandon the vessel. Though 17 men stayed with the ship and a few others made made the 60 mile trek to shore, the majority of the crew found themselves in either the frigate’s lifeboats, or on a raft which was hastily assembled from parts of the Medusa. When a storm threatened to break up the grounded ship, 146 men and one woman hurried aboard the raft and, along with the lifeboats, took to the sea.

The story of the raft can be found in much more detail in either book form or even on Wikipedia, but the pertinent details come from the raft’s next few weeks on the open sea. With half of the raft underwater at almost all times, no drinking water to be found (only wine), and the inescapable burning of the sun overhead, the survivors took very little time to break with whatever social contract they once enjoyed, and soon found themselves in a gruesome, terrifying struggle. Abandoned by the lifeboats, whose passengers had feared being overtaken by the men on the raft, twenty people were killed or committed suicide the first night at sea. More died trying to fight toward the raft’s center, the only part which was not completely or partially submerged, or by being cast off the raft from the turbulent weather. After four days, only 67 men remained. With no food, cannibalism began to tempt the minds and stomachs of the refugees. By day eight, only fifty men remained.

When I first read this story a few months ago, I was reminded of something from the movie The Dark Knight. In the final showdown between the Batman and the Joker, Heath Ledger’s villain, despite having been fully thwarted by both the people of Gotham and the Batman, remains adamant that society is just a loose set of rules and ideals binding people into living dull, ordinary, and sane lives. “Madness is like gravity,” he explains. “All it takes is a little push.” Are the ties that bind us together really so fragile?

In today’s world, the threats we deal with are not as extreme as isolation on the open seas or massive acts of terrorism by a costumed villain. Instead, they come from disturbed youths bringing weapons into their schools or religious radicals asserting their world views through violence. But most importantly, they come from fear.

The media is quick to cover stories in which something terrible has happened, and for good reason: our right brain is designed to feed on primal urges, and the coverage of violence, death, or panic locks in our attention with a kind of animal magnetism. In an industry fueled by market share and ratings, it would be remiss of us to condemn them for taking these actions. Sure, the swine flu scare has been overexposed and most likely has been played up well beyond even its theoretical potency, but with whom does the blame truly lie? Do we assume that the viewer, affixed to his television with unwavering attention, is the victim? Or is it his need for this sort of stimulus which created the broadcasts in the first place? There’s a saying in the business world that one must let no need go unsatisfied, and as entrepreneurs it is ultimately your goal to find one or many unfulfilled needs and provide the product or service that fulfills them. Like most things in the universe, the forces of supply and demand desire to be in equilibrium — hence why television, music, clothing, and culture continue to adapt and react to one another, year after year, decade after decade. We are all, inevitably, in search of our own sort of personal “happy medium.” The problem is, a perfect equilibrium is an impossibility in this world, and so we continue to adjust and make due with the changes over time — to roll with the punches, if you will. Thus, I stand by my statement earlier that the media is not the issue, as it is ultimately a force seeking to help some of us find that balance.

The problem is with the players, not how the game is being played. According to the social contract, or in less abstract terms the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, we all enter society as equals (“all men are created equal”). However, the benefits given to us as individuals are perfectly heterogeneous — that is, not one person will share the same education, family background, interests, hobbies, skills, etc. as another. By adulthood, we are no longer a nation of “united” states, but rather individual states.

And herein lies the problem with union, be it the Union that is the good ol’ U.S. of A. or the union between you and a friend. Because we are all our own persons — something I am personally a big fan of; monotony sucks — eventually there will arise an issue that two people cannot agree upon. Expand this to a massive scale, and, tada!, you have just found yourself in the battle between Democrats and Republicans. While one side clamors for the end of abortion, the other shouts that individuals rights and beliefs are what make this argument even possible, and therefore the practice should be upheld as a legal option for a mother and her child (or to be permitted by the social contract, you could say). For these same reasons, we can find ourselves caught in conundrums. A right-leaning college educated male who is a devout Christian can support the death penalty, even though his religion forbids murder. Why does he support it, even if his education and spiritual beliefs tell him otherwise? Perhaps his father was gunned down in a convenience store robbery, and he feels justice must sometimes be exacted at the “eye for an eye” level. Or perhaps it’s just a result of the chemical composition in his brain, as a scientist might argue (sometime scientists suck, I know).

(A quick aside: in preparing for this post, I joked with a friend that the only perfectly harmonious society that has ever existed, to my knowledge, was the jellyfish, which in some species will actually link up to form massive colonies that work sort of like a school of fish. The catch is that jellyfish have no brains, and so any decision they make to live as a colony is purely out of some sort of reaction on the chemical level, thus proving my point once again that allowing people, or at least certain people, to think is the source of all our problems. Why is Paris Hilton famous again?)

I know that these are challenging ideas and very large concepts that I am attempting to condense into a very abstract argument, but if you’re still with me, I am grateful. My point today, or rather the idea that I hope to impress to you readers, is that if there is ever to be a reconciliation, a redrawing of the social contract, it has to begin at the most fundamental level–with you and I. The more we make ourselves aware of why we take certain actions, the more capable we are of controlling those actions and not letting those actions control us. Much like my last politically-charged post, think of this as a sort of call to arms. The next time you find yourself nodding in agreement with one of the talking heads on TV, take a minute to try to reason out why it is that you’re nodding. Our minds are always looking to solve puzzles and make the irrational world make sense. Try to harness that ability on a conscious level. It’s like one of those draw-by-numbers books: you start off just connecting the dots, and by the time you finish, there’s a freaking Pegasus leaping off the page.

Believe it or not, this is the principle upon with our government was built. Why do you think people joke about writing a letter to your congressman? Because, a long time ago, it actually did more than jack and shit. Our politicians are representatives of the will of the people, and therefore the power of the country lies in us, not them. We can sit by and watch as the Dems and Reps on Capitol Hill bicker with one another about the future of our country, or we can use our voices and speak up. I’m not saying you need to start watching C-SPAN — I’m not a sadist. But if we want to stop party politics from becoming the new class lines, ignorance is not an option. In the future, will Romeo not be allowed to marry Juliet because his family supports gay marriage and hers still calls African Americans “colored” people? A difference of opinion can be a great thing in a friendship, or even a relationship. Lord knows I don’t agree with my friends on every issue (though most of the time it’s because they’re just utterly wrong), but we’re still friends all the same. Just because your religion tells you homosexuality is wrong does not mean all gays are riding shotgun with Lucifer on the highway to hell. But still I see the judgment in people’s eyes when two guys seem a little too close to each other. I’m sorry, I thought it was the 21st century. Haven’t we gotten past this yet?

Bottom line: the code of conduct in our society is not written in words, but in actions. Do not let ignorance and fear act as controlling forces in your mind. We do not need to be categorized by party, social class, or sexual interest — labels are a shortcut to help make expressing negative opinions easier. Fight them. Think through your actions and understand the sources of your beliefs. Deduction, my dear Watson, is a wonderful thing.

Pay attention to your surroundings; don’t let things happen to you, let yourself be the one who dictates the change. There is no way to please everyone, so focus on doing what’s right for yourself; more often than not, it will be what’s best for everyone.

And for the love of God, if you get shipwrecked somewhere, don’t eat the person next to you. He might have swine flu.

America is marching into the future not willingly, but kicking and screaming. I can hardly blame her.

For those of you reading this out of boredom or simply because you’re wondering what I’m talking about now that the headline and intro have grabbed your attention, perhaps you’ve missed the news of late. Here’s a brief recap:

The auto industry is floundering. I mean, it doesn’t have just one foot in the grave; it’s got on its Sunday best, the coffin is ready to be lowered, and they say the service is going to start at any minute. If you’re working for Ford or GM, you thank God you got to go to work today. If you work for Chrysler, well let’s face it, you don’t work for Chrysler any more because it is about to perform its great vanishing act. I’m being a little lighthearted about a very grave situation for many, many Americans, but let’s face it, folks: GM and Ford got called to the principal’s office and I don’t think they’re coming back with just a few weeks of detention.

Which moves us into the second phase of the recap: what’s been going on over at Capitol Hill? A lot, but you’d hardly be at fault for not noticing, given that the world is still broken. Most recently, there’s been a big huff about CO2. See, that was a pun. But seriously, carbon dioxide is bad, m’kay — at least, so say the EPA and our new leader, President Obama. A daring new ruling has just hit the Oval Office after two years of study. Back then, in 2007, Bush was dealing with a ruling by the Supreme Court over whether or not CO2 was a harmful substance, and if it was should the EPA be tasked with regulating it. Well, word has now just conveniently got back that, hey, CO2 is pretty fucking terrible for the planet, and we should probably stop making so much of it.

Now, that sounds like a good idea, right? Well I certainly thought so back in October when Obama was calling for a Cap’n'Trade policy on greenhouse gases. Back then, the general idea was that greenhouse gases were really bad, and in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil as well as rescue the earth for suffocation, we would limit the amount of pollutants we release as country, and charge ourselves if we went over the set limit. Noble idea, no?

Apparently “no” was what Congress thought. Six months, a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, and a new Democratic president later, the Senate votes almost unanimously that no ruling on emissions control should be passed if it raises the prices of electricity and fuel. Whoa. Didn’t we just, you know, vote for the guy that said, quite publicly, we will limit emissions and tax ourselves for using too much? And now Congress is all like, “Whoa buddy. In case you didn’t notice there’s a recession going on. We can’t really afford all these wacky ideas of yours.” Obama’s response? “Yes, you can.”

Remember that bill I mentioned regarding the EPA? Well Obama certainly did, and now he’s wielding it in the form of a gun, trained on the Senate. Here’s the ultimatum: either the Senate sticks to its guns and says no to cap’n'trade, or Obama will likely enact EPA control over CO2 emissions, assuming it is within his power to do so. That, folks, would be very, very bad. Whenever the government is in charge, it usually is pretty bad, but when it comes to air? Do you think we can just warden off our air and separate it from China’s or Europe’s? There isn’t even a plausible way to differentiate air polluted by the US and air polluted by Mexico (well, the smell of tacos might tip us off…)! If the EPA forces sanctions on limiting emissions, not only would the failing Auto industry be the first to die, but the energy grid would be next in line (even though it should be first in line, since it creates the majority of our pollutants, at about 34%). That’s bad. Real bad.

But what about Obama’s cap’n'trade plan, though? Honestly, I really don’t know. Lesser of two evils? Certainly. The right way to go? Maybe. The right move for our country right now? I’m not so sure.

Our country, no, the entire world, is going to have to stand accountable for the gluttonous consumption of the past at some point in the near future. We will all be judge, jury, and executioner for one another, and the consequences will no doubt take a heavy toll on us all. The high and mighty will surely be the first to be cut down and sacrificed, sinners and merchants of death all of them (ya right), but it will be you and me, dear reader, who will have to look at ourselves in the mirror and say, “Wasn’t there something I could have done to help stop this?”

There was, and still is. Make no mistake, and do not doubt your decisions so far. Barrack Obama was the correct choice for president. Regardless of whether or not his policies are the safest or most sound, we now have a president that is willing to give us all a swift kick in the ass and get us back on our feet… though I admit the logistics of that make it sound like he’s just a bully. Still! we must press on. The banks and the foreclosures were only the beginning of a long and drawn out reckoning. But with every institution that falls, a lesson is learned and a new opportunity springs forth. Personal computers stopped selling? Smartphones and netbooks (very small laptops) have sprung up to take their place. The housing market is stagnant? Could you pick a better time to be looking for an apartment or condo, you fresh out of college, broke-ass student? Chrysler is going bankrupt? Did you that they were ranked as one of the worst car manufacturers in the world by Consumer Reports? Did you know that Chapter 11, should they fall into it, would allow the company to restructure and actually have a chance at being less terrible than it was before? Black cloud, silver lining, so on and so forth.

It’s not all coming up roses, but then again it never did to begin with. We’re humans; we stand up, walk forward, trip, fall down, and pick ourselves back up. If there never were any mistakes to learn from, there would be no interest in trying anything new. (Why try to fly if we weren’t born with wings? Even then, it’s not like the Wright Bros. got it in one take and stopped there.)

Right now, the government is too scared of the new to accept any lesson it may be taught. I say go ahead and make the leap. No matter the outcome, we’re bound to be better by it.

(P.S. The title of this post refers to the climax of Atlas Shrugged, when John Galt explains that if he were to meet the Titan Atlas and consult him about his enormous burden, there would be no greater sign of defiance, or personal strength, than to shrug the weight of the world off as if it were nothing. So to all of you reading this worried about your personal futures in these dire times–shrug.)