Capitalism: The Musical.

Living in Northeastern Ohio means that I live somewhat close a GM factory. This, of course, means that every day I’m bombarded with the news that GM is laying off tons of workers because they just don’t have the money to keep them going. And this, of course, is moderatly depressing. Thinking of all of those families who are now struggling to get by because the company that they used to work for needs to reduce their costs in order to keep profits up, an understandable point from their point of view, but there’s something even more depressing at the core of the problem.

American car companies like GM, Ford, and ect. are under a massive amount of pressure to change. Japanese car companies are steadily taking away profits and jobs from companies like GM, and change is the only way that GM can compete. And GM refuses to change. GM could increase profits easily: reduce the amount of SUV’s made each year, increase the number of fuel efficient cars, and stop resisting necessary change while hammering the “BUY AMERICAN!” slogans that haven’t been relevent in years.

“BUY AMERICAN” is a type of mindset that I don’t particularly understand. The whole slogan is based around this idea that, as an American, you should really have to buy only American products, despite your actual preferences or the quality of the product being made. Yet capitalism, a major part of Americana, is all about free choice. So why am I some kind of traitor for wanting to buy a car that gets better gas mileage, especially since it’s my right as an American consumer to make that choice?

Capitalism is a free market regulated by the choices of the consumer. It’s probably the most simple definition anyone can ask for, yet it seems that the American definition of capitalism is “free choice, as long as America is doing better than everyone else”. Which is not the definition at all, obviously. America is not above other countries, especially in a system so defined by consumer choice. If the consumer does not like what America is doing, then they have the right to go elsewhere for products.

This is when the debate over the falling profits of American car companies gets to be annoying. Folks who claim to be defenders of capitalism will contradict themselves and claim that there should be protection for domestic companies. This simply does not make sense, and it stands as being contrary to what capitalism is about.

Yes, it does suck when you hear the news that thousands of GM employees are going to have to struggle to find work, pay their bills, and feed their families. But giving domestic companies an unfair advantage just gives them an excuse to keep making sub-par products and then using the excuse of “well, people should be buying American, and the government isn’t helping us like they should be”. In turn, this means that Americans will keep paying more at the pump because we’d be forced into buying gas guzzlers.

It is also pretty amusing to see conservatives, who by definition are supposed to be opposed to the government getting involved in the private sector, clamering for more government regulations over businesses, when years before they would have been outraged by such a thought. Yes, time changes beliefs as the world changes, but selling out such a core belief just for the sake of hating anything foriegn is pretty pathetic.

However, I do admit that I believe that the government should have more of an ability to regulate business than they do. Not that they should offer protection for businesses just because they make a sub-par product, but because I do believe the government should be able to take down those businesses that make use of unfair, unethical, and just plain amoral business practices. And once again, the same group of folks who want protection against foreign companies are usually outraged at the idea of prosecuting CEO’s, because “that’s how business works,” even though they themselves want to change the way business works in favor of helping companies that resist change all for the sake of stubborness.

Now listening to: Destroyer- Streethawk: A Seduction.

Should We Talk About the Weather?

Last weekend, we got a lot of snow here. So much that all of the roads here were closed down, and people that live in dorms were basically forced to be stuck in their rooms for the entire day, because it was impossible to drive or walk anywhere. This was a pretty big hassle in of itself. As someone who lives on take out food, I didn’t get to eat anything other than potato chips and other vending machine goodies. However, this wasn’t the worst part.

The majority of the people that I talked to this weekend made the following joke: “man, look at all the snow! Al Gore sure was right! Thanks a lot, global warming!” or some variation of the such. Aside from the fact that it gets annoying when people make the same joke that I’ve heard 5 times already that day, the whole joke is annoying for the attempted political statement there.

Global warming and climate change is one of those issues that gets polarized for reasons that I honestly don’t understand. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that global warming does exist, such as a slight rise in sea levels, melted ice caps, and air current temperatures that seem to be warming year after year. Yet people want to ignore the clear facts for the simple fact that Al Gore, a liberal, believes in them, and therefore, they are not allowed.  Yep. I’m glad people in this country can think for themselves and get educated.

Let’s dissect the criticism here a little bit, just for fun:  the main argument being given is that even if there is climate change, it’s probably natural since the Earth goes through different weather cycles all the time. Yes, this one is very true. But regardless of whether or not the weather changes are caused by man, the steps taken to prevent man-made climate change will still be beneficial. Any progress in terms of being more environmentally conscious is a good thing. Every step being taken will positively effect the Earth, regardless of whether or not it actually fixes the climate change issues.

Secondly, much of the opposition in made due to a fear that businesses will lose money once they make an attempt at being more thoughtful of the environmental issues that are being discussed. This is just flat out wrong. One of the biggest news stories of 2007 was that Toyota beat Ford in overall automobile sales, and that this trend of foreign car manufacturers having better sales than American companies doesn’t seem to be slowing down. One of the reasons for this is that by making their cars more environmentally sound, they also made cars that are more fuel efficient and that cost less at the pump. Obviously, this kind of fuel efficiency is a huge selling point that stubborn American car companies don’t have. It’s a winning situation for everyone involved: the customer gets more miles for the gallon and spends less on gas, the company makes higher profits, and carbon emissions are cut down. So as for an economic impact, it’s mostly positive. The transition may cost a little money, but as soon as that’s dealt with, other costs are decreased. So what’s the big deal here?

Another major issue with the non-global warming people comes from this idea that it’s still cold in winter, therefore global warming must not exist. This one stems mainly from a huge misunderstanding about what global warming actually is. Global warming is not an overnight thing that will suddenly effect temperatures everywhere. Warming begins at the poles, then starts to hit ocean air currents. These currents then start to warm air in other places. But this happens over a period of hundreds of years. Expecting it to be 60 degrees in January is just plain stupidity.

Lastly is a point that goes back to the Al Gore thing. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard “but Al Gore flies a jet and wastes gas and etc.” So what? Yeah, there’s a level of hypocrisy there, but pegging Gore as the main person in the movement is just dumb. There are a lot of hypocrites out there advocating right-wing issues, but you don’t see the conservatives giving them the same bashing. Rush Limbaugh being a drug addict didn’t make conservatives, or even liberals, say that the war on drugs was stupid just because Rush is a hypocrite. No conservative jumped on Newt Gingrich’s ass for being a total hypocrite for attacking Clinton over an affair while he himself was cheating on a dieing wife. Why should a whole subject of scientific study be considered obsolete just because of one person being a hypocrite? I’m sure a lot of legitimate areas of scientific studies have been filled with perverts, hypocrites, and assholes. Who’s to say that some of the guys on Thomas Edison’s team helping him with the light bulb weren’t jerking off while imagining being banged by a sheep? That doesn’t mean that the light bulb is stupid.

Mainly the reason this whole issue bothers me is that people that are against global warming research really need to realize that simply researching something isn’t saying that it exists.  Scientific research is intended to either prove or disprove something. If anything, you’d think that conservatives would want to see a lot of research being done so that they can be proven correct. But instead they hide and deflect from the issue because they can’t even pretend to be open to the idea of something that they disagree with being right.

Yet another pet peeve over this issue comes from pundits. Pundits usually tend to make every potentially interesting discussion go sour, but in this case it’s worse than gay marriage and abortion combined. If I had a nickel for every time some jerk like ‘O Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh, guys who have no scientific background at all, claiming that they’re experts on science to a point that they know more than people who have dedicated their whole lives to an area of study. Rush Limbaugh is not qualified to say that he’s an expert in any area of scientific study other than pharmaceuticals, an area in which he actually does happen to be an amateur enthusiast.

My point is this: disagree with the concept of global warming all you want. That’s fine, you’re obviously allowed to so. But closing your mind off so completely that you refuse to accept any other viewpoint but your own. Not only does this make you come off as less of an asshole when you’re in a conversation over the issue with someone, but it also helps take the sting away if you’re proven to be wrong.

Now listening to: The Wrens- The Meadowlands

Why I’m Not Voting in the Primaries.

The last two elections have been similar: one party is fighting against another despite the fact that there’s no clear frontrunner. The majority of the candidates are all running against another candidate rather than running for something, and thousands of people are telling you that if you don’t vote, then you’re a douchebag and you’re harming the country. Well, my friends, I have decided not to vote in the Ohio primary, which is today. And if you’ll all gather around the campfire, I’ll tell you why!

I’m a pretty firm believer in the idea that if you don’t stand for something, you shouldn’t pretend that you do just to fit in or do what everyone says is right. For example, if you don’t feel strongly either way about abortion, marching in an abortion rally probably isn’t the best thing for you to, right?

And voting really has pretty big implications to it. When you cast a vote for a candidate, you’re telling the world that you want that person to run the country. It’s not like you’re saying “hey, I’d totally have a beer with this guy,” or any other insignificant thing like that, you’re casting your opinion about who would do the best job leading the country. So voting is not something to take lightly. You shouldn’t vote against another candidate, and you shouldn’t vote unless you feel strongly about a candidate, right?

And as of right now, I’m not too confident in any of the candidates running. This election has been nothing more than a giant hodge-podge of candidates all running because on weak platforms that are either unoriginal or borrowed from other candidates. And as far as the guys who actually get/got a significant amount of coverage, they’re probably the worst of the bunch. Richardson, who was easily the best Democratic nominee when he was still running, was completely ignored by the media in favor of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, only because they’re more well-known, not because of their actual ideas and platforms.

On the Republican side, it has been and was simply pathetic in terms of candidates this whole election. Giuliani, who promised to 9/11 your 9/11 with his 9/11, was using the Bush tactic of trying his best to scare the nation into voting for him, while Romney decided to be the Republican version of John Kerry. Let’s also not forget the amazing shrinking Mike Huckabee, whose stump speech about “vertical politics” has been given more times than shitty gift cards for Christmas. McCain, the current frontrunner, has essentially sold out his own belief system and started to embrace the policies of a president who routinely disrespected and insulted the senator in order to get elected, as well as keep using illegal torture. All the while, our wacky political grandpa Ron Paul spends his time shouting strange things about how the Department of Education is destroy America and wasting tax money by existing.

Right now, the candidates that I’ve been looking at the most are McCain, Paul, and Obama. McCain is still a pale imitation of his former glory but that former glory is so strong that I’m still tempted to vote for him, Paul is 50% amazing ideas and 50% crackpot on a level even more insane that Michael Savage, and Obama. Oh where to begin with Obama.

I first heard about Obama when the elections were just getting started. The news networks, people I knew, and everyone else were talking about how amazing Obama was. According to them, he was something completely different in a politician. He was fresh, new, and dammit he can change the whole system.

So naturally by the time I actually got to see Obama speak on TV, I was pretty excited. I wanted to see what all of this hype was about. I would learn pretty soon that this hype was pretty ill-informed. Everything he said I had heard before. He gave the same broken promises given by every other candidate I’ve ever seen run for office, aside from Crazy Ron Paul. The same bullshit about keeping lobbyists out of Washington, bringing the country together…it’s all been said before millions of times. What makes Obama different? Nothing.

Obama’s fanbase may possibly be the most annoying fanbase of any politician since Bush’s “LOVE IT OR GET THE FUCK OUT, FAGGOTS” base in 2004. Supporting Obama has become the new trend on college campuses, right up there with North Face Jackets, Dane Cook, and pizza. Most of these people actually don’t know why they support Obama, but they support him with an almost religious dedication. Question Obama’s integrity? Your ass will get jumped all over. Say “well, I kind of agree with Hillary on this issue,” you won’t hear the fucking end of it.

This kind of fanatical support is somewhat scary when you actually sit down to think about it. Blindly standing behind a person, following them without questioning them regardless of knowing why…all of this is exact same thing that let Bush, Reagan, and some of the other worst presidents in U.S. history get away with what they did. I’m not saying that Obama is going to be a horrible president and misuse all of this power, but at the same time, he could easily have the potential based on how fanatic his fanbase is. It all mirrors the Bush fanbase circa 2004, and well all know exactly how that worked out.

Right now, the most important issue that candidates need to address is the illegally increased presidental power that Bush, Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, and Karl Rove gained in the past 8 years. With the way the powers of checks and balances have been eroded, our next president has the ability to take the presidency into dangerous areas of imperial power. Essentially, the president could become a king. No candidate running has addressed this issue. Oh sure, Obama and Clinton have named checked warrantless wiretapping, but there’s so much more than that that needs to be fixed. And voting a president in office without asking them hard questions about this issue is one of the worst things we can do, especially one like Obama who, according to his supporters, is above being questioned.

Do I think Obama would make a bad president, the kind that would seize power just because he can? Not really, but at the same time, he hasn’t done anything to really prove that he isn’t. And I refuse to vote for someone that won’t answer such an important issue.

Currently listening to: Tortoise- TNT