Making It

Without a doubt in my mind I will make it.  Make it better than them, make it larger than life, make it the greatest gift, make it ahead of its time.  I will make it in the dark and in the light naked, yes, I will make it.  Like Langston, but maybe a little more gangster; like Jordan, but maybe a little more corporate, even if I've gotta carry a sword with me, this is my story and I’m not worried, cause there’s not a doubt in my mind that I will make it.  

New Media: How Voters Respond

New media—the “modern press” (Medvic, 2010)—such terms represent sources which allow individuals to have the very latest news and information available to them at all times.  However, what is most meaningful here is that these terms also represent apparatuses which have a major influence on how individuals perceive the political environment such as various issues as well as the candidates running in democratic elections.  Sources such as the internet and the plethora of politically related and social websites is a primary example of new media being used to illustrate different parts of the picture of politics today.  The television is another example.  Cable television consists of news networks that provide the latest news 24 hours a day.  Moreover, not only are these media sources and their affects cotemporary, these sources have revolutionized political communication, ultimately manipulating the behavior of voters.   Because of these sources of new media, candidates and their campaign organizations can be perceived by voters in certain ways just because of the nature in which media sources may illustrate them as they report—which in turn, has the compelling effect of manipulating the decisions of voters at the ballot box. 

Media sources of the “modern press” (Medvic, 2010), particularly the internet and its many related websites, as well as television channels, have been utilized by candidates, since the late twentieth century.  According to Medvic, the late 1980s was a period that marked the beginning of news networks providing news around the clock via the avenue of cable television.  The 1990s, of course, was the period that birthed the amazing convenience of the internet.  Additionally, television news networks such as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox have reporters covering developing situations almost every minute of the day—from the White House to the battlefields of the Middle East—ready to give their account at a moment’s notice.     Interestingly, in reporting about the same issues, each of these news networks, very frequently present there report from different perspectives—especially regarding politics.

It is worth noting, as a prerequisite point, that people are not only primarily informed about politics by television news networks and internet websites, but also have developed dependencies on information provided these sources, as it is exceedingly convenient to simply click a couple of buttons on a television remote or keypad, watch, listen or read the latest updates.  Through media effects such as framing, agenda-setting, priming, and learning, the media communicates with the public about candidates and their campaign agendas in the most subliminal and crafty ways.  For example, in setting the public’s agenda—although it is said by Medvic to be “unintentional” (2010)—certain issues are given precedence, as others are completely disregarded.  In this way, the media is able, in a sense, to control voters’ perception of which issues are important and which issues are not.  Priming, another unintentional media effect—according to Medvic—is a result of information provided by the media that “influence[s] the factors voters use to evaluate candidates” (2010).  Framing, on the other hand, in which there are two forms—episodic and thematic—seems to be a bit more intentional, in that candidates “routinely frame issues in ways that will work to their electoral advantage” (Medvic, 2010).  These media effects, obviously, have potently changed the overall nature of political communication, and must be considered as extremely meaningful variables of the campaign process.

In a broader sense, even when it comes to more traditional sources such as newspapers and magazines, members of the media have a job in which ultimately requires them to operate in ways that attract the attention of the public.  Thus, their fundamental agenda is to present information that is interesting.  This usually involves using catchy headlines and sometimes exaggerated content, often creating a drama-like perception in the minds of very attentive voters.  This simply makes the statement that new sources of media have become like an arm of a sort of political communication body.  Yes, candidates and their campaign organizations will have their platforms, themes, and overall direction as they attempt to win votes, but because of the media and their desire to present the most attractively interesting narratives, candidates and their organizations need only to set the initial tone. 

Furthermore, because “urban residents and those with high education are significantly very often exposed to television discussion programs on politics…” (Gibson & Rommele, 2007), to assert that a large number of voters make their voting decisions based on information received from the media, is not far-fetched at all.  Voters that primarily follow political broadcasts aired on the Fox news network, will be more in tune with more of a conservative or Republican perspective, and if they agree with things they see and hear, they will likely vote for Republican candidates.   The same goes for voters mainly following political broadcasts aired on MSNBC, except those voters will be more in tune with a more liberal or Democratic perspective and are more inclined to vote for Democratic candidates.  In speculation, followers of CNN broadcasts may be more interested in staying in tune with objectively reasonable facts that present the pros and cons of both major parties, allowing them to make the conscious decision to intelligently vote in the most logical manner.  It can safely be included here that these new sources of media essentially controls the minds of average voters today. 

References

Elmelund-Præstekær, C., & Hopmann, D. (2012). Does Television Personalise Voting Behaviour? Studying the Effects of Media Exposure on Voting for Candidates or Parties. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35(2), 117-140. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2011.00284.x

Medvic, Stephen K., (2010) Campaigns and Elections: Players and Processes, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 20 Channel Center Street Boston, MA 02210 & international.cengage.com/region

Rachel K. Gibson and Andrea Römmele in: Daniele Caramani (ed): Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007

The People Matter the Most

Introduction

            Every organized system has its components which may give it a distinguished appeal when compared to other systems, and to this fact, a state or local government is no exception.  It goes without saying that some governments are better because of this and some are worse because of that, but it is ultimately the individuals occupying the positions that make the system effective.  Here, the state government systems of California and Louisiana will be considered and analyzed along with the local government system of New York City.  This paper primarily discusses some of the components that may distinguish these government systems from other state and local government systems while briefly, in certain instances, considering other variables that may be conveniently associated.  Additionally, however, in analyzing these three government systems, this paper will present the argument that even though governing bodies may develop and use various strategies to govern more effectively, it is explicitly the people occupying government positions that possess the most significance within the equation of any government system.    

A Peep at California

“In politics and government, California is a state divided, not so much between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, or business and labor as between political partisans and reformers” (Los Angeles Times, 2011).  Interestingly, a large percentage of these political partisans and reformers that seem to have been the most politically active for the state in recent decades are not elected government officials, but average American voters, allowing the governing mechanism of direct democracy to become California’s underlying avenue for policy reform.  Moreover, this potent use of direct democracy in California certainly distinguishes the state from most other entities within the Union, but is only, however, one facet of this distinguishing factor.                 

In the state of California, this citizen-powered method of governing known as direct democracy has evolved from a time in history when the most progressive mentalities were becoming more and more noticeable throughout the nation, especially in the Golden State.  It is worth noting here that California was one of the first states to implement direct democracy practices as they followed preceding states back in 1911 when “Gov. Hiram Johnson […] proposed and campaigned for what have become the three faces of direct democracy: the recall, which allows voters to throw out an officeholder even before the next regularly scheduled election; the referendum, which empowers voters to overturn laws adopted by the Legislature; and the initiative, which lets voters circumvent the Legislature and adopt laws and constitutional amendments directly” (Los Angeles Times, 2011).  This is such a considerable distinguishing factor because it acknowledges and highlights not only the state’s progressive character, but also the idea of this particular character proving to be potently rooted within the states DNA for over a century.  Additionally, as we consider the state today, along with the way of direct democracy, we must not disregard citizens of California and their “deep distrust of politicians” (Sappenfield,2003), and contrastingly, how this governing mechanism—as somewhat domineering as it has been in California—has also proven to be counterproductive.    

Although there seems to be a great level of nationwide distrust in government these days, the state of California has suffered from this, as it has been damaging to the state’s governing effectiveness because of the use of direct democracy.  California citizens’ lack of trust in politicians “has increasingly led them to limit politicians' power and discretion” (Sappenfield, 2003) through the implementation of direct democracy practices, rendering a sort of dysfunctional government system.  According to The Economist, “Many initiatives have either limited taxes or mandated spending, making it even harder to balance the budget” (2011).  The Economist article also specifically mentioned an “impoverished” affect that ballot initiatives have had on the representative government of California.  In addition, it seems, clear—based on a limited amount of information—that because of the potent nature of direct democracy practices, California citizens have metaphorically robbed their government of a great deal of its legislative power. 

The power of direct democracy, without a doubt has been advantageous for the citizens of California in regards to their undying hubris, in that it has allowed them to contest their government, and be more active politically—the citizens, over the years have been able to feel more in control.  However, “this citizen legislature has caused chaos” (The Economist, 2011).  Decisions that have been made by citizens via direct democracy practices in California seem to have done more harm than good, accomplishing the complete “opposite of their intent” (The Economist, 2011).  Direct democracy, obviously, according to the Golden State’s experience, is a dangerous double-edged sword.

 How Louisiana Looks

            It is a fact that a major distinguishing component of Louisiana’s government in recent years has been its resilience.  Much of the recent sources of information about Louisiana’s government refers, somehow, to its ability to effectively manage things in response to the devastating damages caused by Hurricanes such as Rita, most certainly Katrina and Gustav.   The mitigation and management of the terroristic affects caused by Hurricanes and other natural disasters such as floods is a part of the equation that is of the utmost importance to the state of Louisiana and its government—in a way that is unlike governing bodies of other states.  Thus, governing officials of Louisiana must budget properly and be absolutely certain that funds are allocated particularly for a rainy day that has a high probability of presenting itself at any time—those running Louisiana’s government do seem to have proven to be effective in this area, allowing the state to bounce back in a prominent way.

             Because Louisiana’s system of government appears to be a system that has been effective when it comes to budgeting fiscal resources, it seems the state has been able to effectively provide services that are meaningful to citizens.  For example, the state has been able to, in recent years, implement a more updated and efficient emergency response system.  Another example is VITA—Volunteer Income Tax Assistance—a free income tax preparation program.  This Program was documented by Lim, DeJohn, and Murray, as a “vital resource available to low-income families” (2012).  Other services, of course, which are typically provided to individuals via the Department of Human Services are available to the public, representing a system of government that is ever-ready to provide quality services to its citizens.

           

New York City at a Glance

            What appears to be the most unique about the government system of New York City, is its wide scope of responsibility as a local city governing body.  New York City’s government is responsible for as much, and sometimes more than some state governments.  The local governing entity of New York City can be likened to a state.  The ostentatious city is comprised of 5 boroughs, which are essentially cities/towns in their own right; however, they just happen to exist within a legally established city jurisdiction which oversees and governs them.  Moreover, New York City mayors, which can be likened to a state’s governor, must accept a lot more responsibility than mayors of other smaller cities, and are often more popular than most of their fellow counterparts.  Moreover, it is interesting to consider the fact that in the last twenty years, New York City has had only two mayors, both of which campaigned on Republican tickets, and have been able to lead an “overwhelmingly Democratic” city of very proud citizens—a government system may not be able to get any more unique than that.

Conclusion

Every state and local government will have their distinctive differences, of course, but having the most unique government, obviously does not insure effectiveness.  It seems sensible that the most significant variable in any government system is personnel.  It is a complete exercise in futility to expect positive results (i.e. proper plan/strategy execution) from a government system which is managed by corrupt, incompetent, and even obstructive individuals.  Subsequently, when governments fail or fall short of their agendas, fundamentally, the most meaningful solution is personnel replacement somewhere within the body.  Whether it be the head, the tail, or anywhere in between, someone has to be replaced.  Moreover, this personnel replacement does not necessarily have to entail terminating someone’s existence within the system unless that action is utterly appropriate—but a simple reconfiguration will be just as effective, and oftentimes even more effective.  Why?  Typically, whoever is being replaced is intimately aware of the governing agenda, making him an asset in one way or another.  Thus, a simple demotion/promotion maneuver will ultimately be the most effective, especially since the individual being demoted, in most situations, is happy to still be a part of the game and is suddenly more motivated to prove himself—it works out holistically better.  Without the right people, any government system will reap negative results.

Because personnel is essentially the single most important variable within a government system, there must be an effective method which allows a solid understanding of an individual’s sincere perspective and abilities.  If each person within a governing body, from the head to the tail, is thoroughly understood in terms of their sincere perspective and abilities before they are offered a position as well as during their tenure, there is a higher probability that a government’s agendas will be effectively executed.  This particular perspective is nothing more than simple logic, anyone with credentials sufficient enough to occupy a position within a governing body should agree.

After a very limited analysis of the three states included here, the most effective governing entity cannot intelligently be depicted.  Each government system has its flaws as well as its areas of effectiveness.  However, what seems worthy of noting here is the fact that even in the very limited amount of sources that were examined to support the information expressed in this paper, an explicit, encased analysis of various individuals occupying various government positions was not apparent.  Although this sort of analysis is certainly available in some data base somewhere, its level of significance in terms of an effective government system should give it a sense of precedence that would allow it to be easily accessible.  Nevertheless, the spirit of right reasoning sufficiently supports the assertion that it is the people that matter the most.

References

A california tuneup; direct democracy is here to stay. but the state's initiative system has flaws that should be fixed. (2011, Oct 10). Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/896812155?accountid=32521

Leaders: The perils of extreme democracy; lessons from california. (2011, Apr 23). The Economist, 399, 11. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/863131551?accountid=32521

Lim, Y., DeJohn, T. V., & Murray, D. (2012). Free Tax Assistance and the Earned Income Tax Credit: Vital Resources for Social Workers and Low-Income Families. Social Work, 57(2), 175-184. doi:10.1093/sw/sws035

Louisiana parish saves $400,000 annually with O&M contract. (1993). The American City & County, 108(8), 42. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/195913673?accountid=32521

Mark Sappenfield Staff writer of The Christian,Science Monitor. (2003, Oct 10). How direct should democracy be? ; schwarzenegger prepares for office, but some see recall as part of a broken system. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/405683540?accountid=32521

Marris, E. (2008). 'Lucky' Louisiana unprepared for Gustav. Nature, 455(7210), 147. doi:10.1038/455147a

NORDLINGER, J. (2013). Freedom From Fear, For Now. National Review, 65(16), 19-21.

Parkes, C. (1998, May 23). White power by plebiscite: Referendums are often seen as the purest form of democracy. FT writers look at their impact in california and switzerland, which is about to hold the world's first state poll on genetic engineering: Financial Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/248681902?accountid=32521

The board of estimate, 1898 - 1989; shaping the new new york city government. (1989, Apr 06). New York Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/427160812?accountid=32521

  

I’m feelin’ like I’ve got nine lives with only Seven of’em left/ won’t rest till I’m up in Heaven with the very best/”In the Heat of the Night”, my man Hollywood did it way before anybody else—what up Scottdale?/ I won’t stop till the whole Eastside hot as hell/might as well, already in hell, going toe to toe with the devil like Mayweather and Pacquiao--I’m tryin’ to knock this motherf***er out/BLOUW! Oooooh, got him on the ropes, but I just can’t seem to get him down/I’m doin’ this for my town, I’m doin’ it for my crown, cause I’mma King like Tut—gotta make the first-string like what!/ I’m runnin’ that b**** straight up the gut; u linebackers gon’ get trucked; u hatin’ n****s runnin’ outta luck/and the “real is on the rise”, u can see it in my eyes, I don’t fear u other guys, cause I don’t give a f***!

The storm wasn't quite blown over, I'm in the eye of it/ ...check out this picture of me trapped in a refinery/ but finally, I've overcome the chains that were confining me/ the wool has been removed from my eyes, no longer blinding me/ I'm better--they knew it all along that's why they spited me/ left me in the desert for dead, but I'm a fighter see?/ ...I keep going, nothing outlasts the energizer see?/ and now the rabbit's got the gat--vengeance is within my reach/ ...now move away from my seat, bring them in front of me/ how dare you ever front on me? come kiss the ring of your new king/ ...infidels, you know me well--I've got exactly what it takes to excel; go kill yourselves...





The Vision is Global

Sure, no one wants to go to war, but this is the United States of America! That said, as citizens of this country, we must be certain that we are not only thinking locally, but globally as well.  We must all become aware and maintain a mentality that reflects our "Superpower" status--as if we are a selected few that have been commissioned to guide the rest of the world in a certain direction. 

Personally, I am really proud to be an American citizen, and without trying to be controversial, I have to say I am even more proud because our President happens to be a black man.  Additionally, the fact that our country is the epitome of global citizenry, we must never neglect to remember those suffering in other nations.  This must be the fundamental mentality no matter how difficult our individual lives may seem--we've got it made...in America!

Furthermore, regarding the decision whether or not to intervene in Syrian matters, we as citizens must understand that President Obama's level of intelligence is not only greater than the majority of American citizens, but it is even greater than a lot of Senators, Congressmen, and Governors, pertaining to global issues.  The majority of us are only familiar with the vague information we are able to absorb from the media, whenever we happen to catch it.  Even adamant followers like myself should not in any way believe we are receiving all the details.  What we are dealing with regarding the decision to act militarily in Syria is an American commitment to not only uphold and enforce certain global standards, but to represent America as a selected few that have been commissioned to guide the rest of the world in a certain direction.  Let us allow the Eturnal Expressions highlighted here to lead us in supporting President Obama no matter what he decides to do about Syria, because the "vision is Global"!

  

"...Barely out the ghetto wit, one foot out and one foot in, intelligent as fellas get" (T.I., PaperTrail)/ I never quit, Christian is better than he could ever get/ coming for your spot like I never knew of benevolence/ got a secret weapon that's got a whole bunch of shells in it/ I'm hell wit it, empty the clip and catch me a felony/ for elevating to higher levels, got the devil beneath, right where he's s'posed to be, I'd like to propose a toast to me...

We’re Going to Need Everyone

Unequivocally, environmental issues such as climate change and the quality of our air are issues that must not be taken for granted by any means.  These environmental issues must even be given precedence over many political issues widely discussed daily by media agencies and representatives.  Moreover, when discussing these issues, we must concentrate on the best possible approach that can be applied to mitigate the effects of climate change as well as air quality.  Here, for example, a few of the fundamental topics of a hypothetical conversation and their importance in combatting the effects of these environmental issues will be considered such as developing an integrative approach, obstacles that may obstruct us from realizing an integrative approach, problems with maintaining a compartmentalized or fragmented approach, and whether or not policies related to individual behaviors are effective in addressing these issues.  It is wise for absolutely everyone who is anyone to collectively take the initiative to be proactive in doing anything necessary to preserve our planet and environment in order for future generations to have the privilege to do the same, and it seems it must begin with governance.

It must be noted that the most sensible perspective will be imparted here in regards to each aspect of a hypothetical conversation about the environmental issues of air quality and climate change, particularly pertaining to the importance of the development of an integrative approach.  Sarcastically, one could ask the question, “What could possibly be a better way to mitigate the effects of these issues other than generating an approach that gets everyone involved?”  This sort of approach, without question, must be the number one route to take when considering a practical approach to combat these issues.  Essentially, this planet is not the sole property of world governments.  Every individual alive in this world must breathe as well as endure the climatic changes that occur throughout our lives.  Thus, how is it sensible to compartmentalize or fragment the approach in which we use to preserve our environment?  Logically, it cannot possibly be.  The most effective policy approach must be one that is pervasive throughout the global society.

Next, as it is wise, a conversation about these environmental issues must highlight certain obstacles of obstruction—political, social, and scientific—that could possibly obstruct governing officials as well as critical thinkers within the lay public from realizing or generating an integrative approach to mitigating and combatting the effects of these issues.  Politically, from the perspective of the United States, the primary obstacle in regards to policy making and actually getting a law passed is simply the push back from those pessimistic representatives on the Hill that believe that issues such as the ones mentioned here have no significance and should not be considered in the legislative agenda.  Socially, the most notable obstacles of obstruction in this case would have to be the lack of awareness and true understanding of the ramifications we will suffer if these issues continue to be taken lightly.  According to Cardwell and Elliot, “The lack of understanding of climate change as a significant environmental health risk on the part of the lay public represents a significant barrier to behavior change” (2013).  Moreover, in theory, possible scientific obstructing obstacles could also stem from the disagreeable members of Congress that probably will not support the idea of providing the funding necessary for scientific research.  These are just simple and seemingly logical examples of what could possibly stand in the way of the implementation of a practical approach to mitigate and adequately combat environmental issues such as climate change and air quality.

In contrast to the aforementioned significance of generating and implementing an integrative approach, a compartmentalized or fragmented approach is simply not the sort of approach that should even be enacted at all, as it cannot truly yield the holistic results necessary for mitigation.  Again, combatting the effects of environmental issues such as climate change and air quality is not only the responsibility of government agencies, but is the responsibility of every living individual on this planet.  Yes, the enactment of a compartmentalized or fragmented approach has the potential of permeating throughout the lay public.  However, the fact that “The urgent need for a societal response to climate change has been reinforced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) assessment of the most up-to-date science on climate change…” (Whitmarsh, et. al., 2013), indicates that individuals within the lay public are not as engaged as we need to be.  Furthermore, it is even more sensible, when considering this information, that an integrative approach is the better direction.

Finally, in considering a hypothetical conversation regarding issues such as climate change and air quality, the previously mentioned “…urgent need for a societal response…” (Whitmarsh et. al. 2013) to these particular environmental issues, is also evidence that policies that may be established have not been effective.  Certain sections of the society have, however, embraced, in different ways, roles that have been advocated by the government (Whitmarsh, et. al., 2013).  For example, from the perspective of consumers, some people are aware and even choose to implement ways to purchase and use “low-carbon products and services” (Whitmarsh, et. al., 2013).  There are undoubtedly aspects of certain environmental policies related to individual behaviors towards the mitigation of these environmental issues, but as research has indicated here, the bulk of society has not responded sufficiently.

The only sensible approach to mitigating and combatting the effects of environmental issues such as climate change and air quality, as it has been expressed here, is an integrative one—and not only is an integrative approach the best way to go, but it is important that a more comprehensive prescription is enacted immediately.  According to Christopher Hayes, the host of MSNBC’s All-In with Chris Hayes, “The ability of humans to work outdoors has been cut 10% because of global warming” (2013).  The exceeding warming of the Earth causes abnormal changes in the Earth’s climate, and also has caused other negative changes to occur such as abnormal weather patterns.  A more comprehensive, integrative approach that captures the attention of individual citizens throughout the entire world and prompts them with information that compels them to proactively get involved in preserving our environment is imperative, and must not be taken lightly.  Earth’s preservation should be important to everyone, because we cannot create another planet—it is everyone’s responsibility.  However, because of the lack of awareness of how important these environmental issues are, we absolutely must receive necessary assistance from our legislators to become more productive in preserving our planet.

 

 References

Cardwell, F. S., & Elliott, S. J. (2013). Making the links: do we connect climate change with health? A qualitative case study from Canada. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1-12. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-208

 Christopher Hayes, (2013)  All-In with Chris Hayes, MCNBC

 Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, S., & Lorenzoni, I. (2013). Public engagement with climate change: What do we know and where do we go from here?. International Journal Of Media & Cultural Politics, 9(1), 7-25. doi:10.1386/macp.9.1.7_1

 

IT’S WHO WE ARE ALREADY

According to Roskin, Cord, Medeiros, and Jones, there has been no political theory, neither is there one likely to “establish itself as the dominant paradigm” (2010).   In acknowledging that, I find it quite appropriate to assert the cliché that “there is always room for improvement”.  Thus, I strongly believe that the establishment of a dominant, more practical paradigm is feasible, primarily one the United States can be proud of simply because of its effectiveness in resolving issues.  As sort of a mock reconstructive model for our country’s political system, I will present ideas in this essay that I believe will collectively be sufficient for the overall prosperity of America, while also briefly discussing reasons to shun the authoritarian way.  My argument is that because we currently operate in an ideal democratic system that possesses characteristics of the dominant paradigm, by considering and adopting certain aspects of the Confucian system, and concentrating on developing a more Liberal Libertarian way, our system can become the dominant paradigm, because it’s who we are already.

As an appetizer here, it should be noted that in no way am I against those in positions of authority, but the practices of authoritarianism or even the mere hint of them in present-day America, is absolutely absurd to me (I am speaking from the perspective of America as a microcosm).  There should not be one person alive, with a sound mind that should be willing to submit to authoritarian practices of any kind.  Politically, authoritarian systems have proven to be ineffective, suppressing “individual initiative by regulations and taxes, and crush[ing] critical viewpoints” (Roskin, Cord, Medeiros, and Jones, 2010).  As a man in a position on the very bottom of society’s totem pole, people like me, who are in that same position, are the very people that I am advocating, and as their advocate and representative, I feel I am certain that none of us would be happy living under such circumstances.  It is safe to say that everyone just wants to be free in every possible aspect. 

As a Liberal Libertarian, I am all about freedom as well as equal opportunity for everyone—not just white people, or people with a certain last name, or people who have been in a particular employment position with a company for a hundred years, or people who look better than others, or rich people or poor people—everyone!  Theoretically, this sort of outlook is one that should be an element that makes up that dominant political system.  This is an outlook that says to the government, “Leave me alone unless I need help and you  have something in place that can help me”, “Establish tax rates that work for everyone and don’t raise those rates unless absolutely every other option has been exhausted and there is no other choice but to do so”, “None of my rights should ever be infringed upon under any circumstances, unless it is in an instance of national security”—this is an outlook that will be sufficient for all people no matter what, and it will eventually make up that dominant paradigm because like-minded citizens of other nations will gravitate towards it, particularly government officials.

Additionally, as it seems, the United States is already, essentially, a Liberal Libertarian nation and the days of the uptight, ultra-conservative are rapidly fading away.  Today, it seems the only reason people claim the Republican Party is because of loyalty to their family or maybe even because they were able to get a job that sort of made them guilty by association.  The same goes for Democrats, except they can be given a little slack here, because a good bit of them are truly genuine—other than that, a number of newer Democrats are merely members of the party because they could not fathom not being a part of what’s considered to be the “norm”, and they simply despise the stubborn and inconsiderate nature of the G.O.P. so they just settled.  However, essentially, this country is already a liberal nation because we all are committed to “intellectual freedom, freedom of speech, association, and civil liberties generally” (Waldron, 1987).  “In the realm of personal life, [we all] raise [our] banners for freedom of religious beliefs and practice, freedom of lifestyle in regard to sexual practices, marital affairs, pornography, the use of drugs and all those familiar liberal concerns” (Waldron, 1987).  America is already a Libertarian nation because our individual liberties are important to us all.  No one with half a brain even wants to pay taxes at all, let alone high tax amounts.  And anybody who’s anybody understands that government involvement is only necessary when absolutely necessary.  This is a perspective that should be considered more thoroughly in the United States and definitely shared globally with other nations as an element of the dominant political paradigm for effective governing, because it is already a predominant mentality within our society.

Transitionally, because America is a nation that was built on the principles of God, it only makes sense for our fundamental political system to sort of adopt and seriously implement a more practical spiritual dimension, hoping the behavior will become pervasive throughout the nation.  Here’s why emphasis is added to the word practical: everyone knows that the Eastern Hemisphere has a reputation for being more in tune with the spiritual realm than its Western counterpart—in China, operating within the Confucian system, it is said that “the Emperor sets a moral example by purifying his spirit and perfecting his manners” (Roskin, et. al., 2010).  It’s just something about the East and the ways thereof that just makes every spiritual practice in the West seem so watered down.  Also, not only does the Confucian system offer a more practical spiritual dimension, but “some scholars believe that Confucian thought may provide a different meaning or understanding of democracy…” (Keqian, 2006).  For example, “Confucianism considered the ‘people’s will’, which is the accountable evidence of the ‘Heaven’s will’, as the source of approving the legitimacy of political power […] compatible with the Democratic view of political power” (Keqian, 2006).  Moreover, according to Louie, “not only is Confucianism thriving in the twenty-first century [,] it is likely to become even more influential in the foreseeable future” (2011).  “Moderation, harmony, and humane governance [are] qualities that the current advocates of Confucianism presume Confucius himself preached some two thousand years ago” (Louie, 2011)—and they are qualities that the government of the United States of America should most certainly stay mindful of every moment of their governing lives.

Collectively, a good solid foundation of practical spiritual principles, such as the ones that Confucius taught, along with a more Liberal Libertarian outlook, insists that we’ve got ourselves a political paradigm that people all over the world would be willing to submit to, because it’s who the majority of use already are.  Everyone wants the opportunity to share their views if they can, and everyone wants the opportunity to be great.  None of us are animals and none of us should have to submit to governments that obstruct genuine freedom in any way.  This world belongs to us all, and it should be conducted by the many of us who are Confucius in spirit, with an anatomy of Liberal Libertarianism. 

WHY DO WE DO IT?

WHY DO WE DO IT?

There are so many important issues that need our attention—how is it that at least sometimes one doesn’t wonder if his or her “ladder is leaning on the wrong wall”?  So many of us aspire to succeed in fields and accomplish certain goals for all the wrong reasons, and it is only because I have been (and sometimes am still) one of those individuals, that I am able to express this with such assurance.    

So many things appeal to our desires—fancy cars, clothes, jewelry—almost forcing us to chase after them, with the willingness to do whatever to obtain them—but is that all there is?  Are these shiny things the only reason we’re willing to wake up early and stay up late?  Are we oblivious to the importance of the many global issues that may not directly affect us, but without proper attention could impact our lives in unbelievable ways? Sadly, a great majority of us are, and that’s, in no way, a good thing. 

Recently, I was watching a special edition of BET’s 106 and Park, as the network was gearing up for the annual BET Awards.  The absolute most interesting part of it to me was the appearance of the First Lady, Michelle Obama, addressing the people all the way from Africa, as she and the President were supporting the Mandela family and other issues of great precedence that were probably on their agenda.  That very moment during the 106 and Park broadcast, resonated with me like nothing else has in a while!  The First Lady gave such an endearing message, as only a virtuous woman would, but all I heard was: “Look at you fools!  What the hell are you doing with yourselves?  How important is this really?  Do you even know who Nelson Mandela is?  Do you ever consider the land from which you derived and the way of life of your counter-parts that reside therin?  You fools…look at you!  Do you even understand how fortunate you are?”  Now, this isn’t what Mrs. Obama said, nor is it what she may have even been thinking as she spoke, but it most certainly is what I heard.

I would just like to encourage all of us to tune in as much as we possibly can.  Granted, as Americans, we are blessed, even now, with the way of life we are able to live while others, particularly residing in the African continent, suffer in ways we couldn’t fathom.  Let’s enjoy our lives, aspire to succeed in any field our heart guides us towards, and definitely get money, but as an ETURNAL EXPRESSION: DO IT MEANINGFULLY!   

P.E.A.C.E.

"One Smart Black Boy!"

“One Smart Black Boy!”

It is just completely clear, at this point, that Jigga Jay-Z is the “greatest rapper of all time” simply because he’s the “greatest thinking rapper of all time”! Question: How do you get 5 million dollars for selling only a million records before actually selling them?  Answer: You think like Hova! According to MSN Entertainment, the “all-time heavyweight champion of flow-ers”, via Samsung’s Galaxy smartphone, is giving away 1 million copies of his latest “Magna Carta Holy Grail” album.  The news source indicated that the phone company paid Mr. Carter $5 for each copy of the album, which will be available to Samsung Galaxy users when they download a hosting application on the device. Either this guy’s impeccably smart or he has an all-star team, although…only a truly smart person is able to precisely assemble an appropriate crew that can adequately assist him along his aspirational journey…so it’s both!

It Is What It Is

 It Is What It Is

Plato’s “Euthyphro”, in its very intriguing philosophical content, compellingly displays Socratic dialect in a way that is most influential to the inquisitive scholar.  This literary piece is centered on the question and answer form of reasoning between Socrates and his acquaintance, Euthyphro.  The two gentlemen cordially discuss and investigate the concept of piety and its essential meaning in regards to the Gods and overall morality.  This essay, however, is a mere attempt to analyze the dialogue and examine the meaning of piety, beginning by briefly discussing the ultimate goal of Socrates, which is noticed in the dialogue between him and Euthyphro.  The significance of the concept of piety as it pertains to the men’s conversation will be highlighted here as well, along with a brief examination of the term’s definitions which are also expressed by Euthyphro during the gentlemen’s conversation.  Finally, a brief expansion on the terms’ actual definition will also be included in this essay.  It will ultimately be shown here that even though piety can be dissected using the type of reasoning that Socrates applied, the term can yet, simply be defined to be what we—people—have defined it to be.   

 It is completely clear that Socrates had one explicit, fundamental goal throughout the entire dialogue, and that was to grasp the full understanding of the meaning of piety.  Moreover, because Socrates was set to stand trial for the offense of impiety, the opposite of piety, he sought to acquire a completely sound understanding of the meaning of piety, and use it as his defense against the prosecution (Meletus) in the court:  “I was hoping that you would instruct me in the nature of piety and impiety; and then I might have cleared myself of Meletus and his indictment.  I would have told him that I had been enlightened by Euthyphro, and had given up rash innovations and speculations, in which I indulged only through ignorance, and that now I am about to lead a better life” (Euthyphro, Plato)…his plan was crafty, to say the least.  Socrates represented a type of person that we might generally call agnostic.  His counterpart, Euthyphro, represented not only what we would call a faithful believer, but he represented someone that was considered to be adept or well-versed regarding matters of the Gods and morality, and ultimately a man of integrity.  Knowing this, Socrates figured he would simply take advantage of the opportunity to become aware of the nature of piety from a rather renowned and credible source, readily available to him.  Thus, he proceeded to do just that, allowing “piety” to live between the both of them, prominently, for what seemed like an intense moment of time.

This very mentally stimulating dialogue consists of Euthyphro attempting to define piety for Socrates.  However, it is interesting to note that none of Euthyphro’s responses to Socrates’ “What is piety?” was sufficient enough, as Socrates was able to offer logically valid arguments that clearly refuted them all.  Initially, Euthyphro asserted that “Piety is doing as I am doing…” (Plato) referring to his act of prosecuting his own father for murder.  Socrates skillfully refuted Euthyphro’s assertion by reminding him of the nature of the question and simply making him aware of his neglect to provide a precise answer to the question.  Euthyphro’s second attempt at defining the term for Socrates was to provide the difference between piety and impiety: “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them” (Plato).  Socrates is relatively pleased with this answer, but yet swiftly finds an angle to successfully challenge the notion.  Socrates was able to show how certain acts, particularly, Euthyphro’s prosecution of his father, could be deemed as simultaneously pious and impious, by revealing how the act would generate enmity among the gods—and also, once again, making Euthyphro aware of his neglect to precisely answer the question.  As a final definition for piety put forth by Euthyphro to include here, it should be noted that in acknowledging “justice” as merely a  “more extended notion of which piety is only a part” (Plato), Socrates requests that his counterpart “tell [him] what part of justice is piety or holiness, that [he might] be able to tell Meletus not to do [him] injustice, or indict [him] for impiety, as [he is] now adequately instructed by [Euthyphro] in the nature of piety or holiness, and their opposites” (Plato).  Euthyphro kindly responded, this time in much more of a timid manner saying that “Piety or holiness, […], appears to [him] to be that part of justice which attends to the gods, as there is the other part of justice which attends to men” (Plato).  Again, Socrates is dissatisfied, expressing his desire and need for more information on the subject.  This extremely intricate dialogue goes on a little further, only to end with the famous Socrates still separated from the ultimate truth that he sought.

To provide a scholarly definition to the word piety, according to dictionary.reference.com, it would have to be noted as “reverence for God or devout fulfillment of religious obligations” (2013). Although the website did provided three other definitive variations, when considering the nature of the subject presented here, as well as in Plato’s Euthyphro, this particular definition is the one most relevant—and if I must speak from my personal perspective, I would have to say that the website’s definition is sufficient for me.  This definition is the one also, I believe, would have been appropriate in the dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates.  The reason for this belief is simply because it is not clear to me how anyone, including Socrates (although it is very difficult to assert this statement here without feeling a sense of timidity) could find an angle to challenge it and successfully refute the notion.  The website’s definition, as I understand it, provides a direct, head-on description of what piety is, which is exactly what Socrates was seeking from Euthyphro in their dialogue.

People took religious very seriously back in the day of Socrates, even to the extent of it being sort of the next best thing to a governing body’s law.  It seems safe to say that, in a sense, people were almost expected to carry out certain aspects of religion regardless of their personal opinion.  Euthyphro, according to Plato’s literary illustration, was the human definition of piety, yet could not intellectually define what it essentially was.  Additionally, Socrates, exercising his great ability to intellectually mine for ultimate truth, did exactly that, continuously validly making Euthyphro aware of his inability to actually define the term.  However, it should be duly noted that regardless of how Socrates exceedingly exhausted the subject using his reasoning, men have yet, collectively agreed that there is a precise and formal definition for the term and it has been established.  Furthermore, with great respect to Socrates and his reasoning, the famous philosopher was only one man, and as everyone knows…majority rules, and Socrates’ reasoning, in regards to piety’s meaning, has not been established as being valid enough to reject the terms dictionary definition.  Thus, the term can simply be defined as we have defined it to be.                

                    

 References

Plato (427? BCE-347? BCE),  Euthyphro trans., Jowett, Benjamin, retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1642, June 9, 2013

Dictionary.reference.com (2013)

A Glance at Morality

A Glance at Morality

Peter Singer’s 1972 article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, was a rather compelling literary piece that analyzed and, in a sense, provided a summation of society’s moral psyche.  Presenting a brief critique of the response of the world’s affluent nations in regards to the tragic existence of poverty in the “northeastern region of the Indian Subcontinent” (ask.com, 2013)—then known as Bengal—his agenda was simply to express and defend his personal position, with hopes that people would be convinced of the necessity to change what was considered to be society’s normal moral mentality.  As a “principle”, Singer asserted that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer, 1972).  This principle is seemingly explained as something he believed should not logically be refuted, assuming the principle to be “uncontroversial” (Singer, 1972). 


In addition, the author elaborately presented an acute explanation of the principle, magnifying the possible effects, if the principle were appropriately applied.  According to Singer, if acted upon, “even in its qualified form, our lives, our society, and our world would be fundamentally changed” (Singer, 1972).  For example, in applying the principle one would not consider typical factors such as proximity and distance.  Refusing to consider such factors make a person more likely to help someone physically closer, but not unwilling to offer assistance to someone across the globe, eliminating the possibility of justifying discrimination on the grounds of geography (Singer, 1972).  He continued, highlighting a more pessimistic perspective that measured one’s humane responsibility or duty.  Using an illustration of seeing a child drowning in a pond, Singer questioned the level of responsibility one really has to save that child, when also noticing others that are “no further away” (Singer, 1972) and are very much aware of the situation, yet still having neglected to assist the child.  He concluded this assessment by asserting the point that the perspective which considers an excess of people available to help as a means to lessen the obligation, responsibility, or duty of the primary individual is, in fact, “absurd”, labeling it as “an ideal excuse for inactivity” (Singer, 1972).

In the article, Peter Singer also presented his concept of marginal utility, in which he predominantly equated the concept with his overall position on the subject.  It is clear that the author’s overall position is that of the aforementioned principle.  However, it is understood that his ultimate position on the subject is built on this fundamental idea: to “prevent bad things from happening unless in doing so we would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, [would] require reducing ourselves to the level of marginal utility” (Singer, 1972).  He particularly defines marginal utility to be almost a menial level of existence that occurs as a result of one giving to relieve others in need.  It is presented in the article (via excerpt authored by Thomas Aquinas) that, as a person possessing an excess of resources, you are, in a sense, indebted to the person living in poverty.  Thus, establishing the offering of the portion of resources one does not need, as one’s duty.

Transitionally, while providing a thorough account of his primary position, the author expanded on the subject, shining a little light on its yang perspective.  Singer argued that the change of society’s moral mentality or “moral conceptual scheme”, expressed in his position, is “too drastic” of a change.  He explained that because people normally do not consider living luxuriously and not donating to the poor, as morally incorrect as they would consider the immoral act of killing someone, altering society’s mentality in regards to his position would be a bit too much to implement.  Another counter-argument the author made, addressed whether “giving away a great deal of money” is the most effective way to “prevent (something bad from happening) starvation” (Singer, 1972).  The author did explicitly assert his opinion that donating privately would not be enough, and that constructing new ways to contribute finances publicly as well as privately would be necessary.  Interestingly, another way Singer challenged his position was by presenting the idea of rising population rates, and the earth’s ability to support the multitudes.  He introduced the possible problem, if appropriately considered, that this would present for individuals in favor of “preventing (something bad from happening) famine” (Singer, 1972).  This argument was surprisingly concluded with the ironic yet unique strategy of supporting organizations that concentrate on population control, rather than contributing to conventional methods of “preventing (something bad from happening) famine” (Singer, 1972).

In considering Peter Singer’s take on society’s moral mentality, it must be noted that his perspective on the subject was nothing less than radical then, just as it would be now.  In regards to one of his counter-arguments, he was completely on target with the assumption that because of the way society actually perceives morality, the difficulty of implementing his particular paradigm would be at an enormous level.  Aside from that, Singer’s primary position is, undoubtedly, provocative, in that, essentially, there should be no nation, community, family, or individual that should have to suffer from anything—especially something as mediocre as famine—simply because an equation of unconditional love, peace and harmony generates enough resources to support everyone on the planet.  Additionally, no one particular nation, community, family, or individual should feel obligated to fork out any of their personal resources to assist in any matter that is not their own, however, all of these entities, when necessary, should feel obligated to empathize and imagine themselves in the needy situation, causing a willingness to develop a practical and meaningful strategy to assist and contribute effectively.  Furthermore, the subject of moral responsibility is one that, most certainly, should not be disregarded, and is also a subject that should not generate a great deal of conflict.  Regardless of race, color, or creed, we are all a member of an intelligent human family that should always consider the hardships of others, and be enthusiastically willing to assist anyone in need when we are able—and that’s morality!

 

References

Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Spring, 1972), pp. 229-243 Published by: Wiley, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265052

I Don't Really Know, but I Do Know...

I Don't Really Know, but I Do Know...

Politics--so complicated, yet so simple...so much I don't understand, yet there's so much that seems crystal clear.  I want so badly to open up my computer and peck away at my keyboard, expressing my innermost thoughts and opinions about everything I can comprehend that's happening on Capitol Hill, but I'm really afraid that people will think that I think I actually know what I'm talking about.  I really do not want people to have that perception at all, being that I have no clue what's really going on!  However, I am in dire need to express what I was able to observe while watching a congressional hearing (this is probably not exactly what this particular event might be formally called) on C-Span on June 5, 2013.

Now again, I am totally oblivious to what's really going on politically, but I suppose I haphazardly pay attention to political broadcasts on television, and in doing so, even in the way that I do, some of the pieces begin to come together in a way that makes me tremendously grateful to be a television owner.  As I can understand, in Congressional hearings, a subject or particular order of business is introduced to the representatives in the House, and then with a much more eloquently implemented protocol than I am able to describe here, the representatives have an opportunity to verbally express whatever it is that they and their staff's have put together in regards to the subject or order of business that has been introduced.  On June 5, 2013, while observing a particular hearing, I felt like a huge part of our country's problem was revealed to me in the form of people like Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia's 11th district. 

Yes, as a member of the Republican party, this guy, as it seems nowadays, has been mechanically wired and programmed to "throw rocks at the throne" every chance he gets.  And yes this is apart of a narrative that has carried on since the beginning of Big O's first term.  However, let this be known as an ETURNAL EXPRESSION: JUST DO YOUR DAMN JOB! 

I totally understand the concept of "checks and balances" between the three branches of government, but to quote one of ESPN's most popular phrases...Come On Man!  This is one of the House's routine sessions, and all you're required to do is simply pay attention to what's going on, and when you have the opportunity, present what you have to contribute to whatever subject is introduced by the dude in the front of the room.  But no...not Phil Gingrey.  Phil Gingrey can't simply present what he has and sit his ass down.  Phil Gingrey has to go out of his way to try to knock points off of the Administration.  What the hell, really, does this weird looking asshole think he's getting out of doing that?  He's obviously not a good polititian, because a good polititian would consider his political future and find ways to get the President's attention and share with him his perspective of the issue since he thinks it's something the Administration is neglecting to consider or even implement.  But...as I have mentioned...I have no clue what's really going on politically!  So...

All I do know is that the country would be substantially more productive if people like Phil Gingrey would JUST DO THEIR DAMN JOB!

P.E.A.C.E.