"I kind of think my life is asking for some drugs"

I don't know if you are like me, but if you are then you've had this same problem that is followed by a same thought, which is fucking boredom, followed with the thought of doing drugs. Sometimes when I'm analyzing my life and measuring the level of boredom that my life consists of, I seriously consider starting to do drugs. And not like marijuana, but like cocaine level drugs, you know, to develop a sort of sophisticated identity, because there is something interesting and sophisticated about drug addicts. They're kind of oblivious to the world around them and the people around them and it gives off a "I don't fucking care about you" type vibe, even though in reality it's a "I'm not sure if I'm walking or not" type thing they're feeling. But, you know, they have this distinct persona. I think it mostly has to do with their body behavior, you know, they're always looking down but at the same time kind of in the distance, like they're in deep thought about something. Like when you see them you think to yourself "that dude has to be thinking deeply about something; he's looking down, and in the distance; is he looking into hell or something what is he looking at? I want to know." And that's it. They make you feel like you want to know something about them, unintentionally of course because really they're looking down because they feel if they look up their brain is going to drop down their throat. They're trying to keep it up top by balancing it on their forehead.

But still, to people who have what they think of as a boring life, they feel that a drug addicts life is a superior way of living than theirs. At least they have an identity; crackhead jim, burnout scott, degenerate sam. At least they're at a point in the spectrum, even though it's negative. But me, for instance, I'm just Jay. That's it. Neutral. No feelings towards me whatsoever. He doesn't bother anyone. He keeps to himself. Yes, I keep to myself. I keep lots of things to myself...Interpret that the way you want, probably creepily but don't contact the police.

But really, I sometimes fantasize about becoming a drug addict. I have visions of family members and friends being worried about me and saying how much potential I had, or have, depending on my physical state, whether I've sniffed by way to irreconcilable retardation or only to a friends house whom I've tried to share his bed with a few times. I picture myself going to drug meetings where I'm sitting with one leg outstretched and the other in a 80 degree position, slouching my back while keeping my head in front of my chest, dazing into the ground as drug addicts do.

And when I have these fantasies I realize I'm smiling as if some hilarious memory popped into my head, like when my friend in 3rd grade told me how he just had ran down the stairs ignorantly and bounced his head of our teacher's boobs who was at the time about to finish her climb up (she had huge boobs and he said they felt literally like two balloons). Isn't this sick. Their are horrifying stories of drug addicts that everyone has heard, and yet I'm fantasizing about becoming one. It's kind of like a girl asking to be raped just so she can assume the identity of "rapee," and go to the therapeutic meetings afterwards just so she can have something to do other than masturbating to speeches by George W. Bush; this girls southern and dumb in my fake story. But I have serious thoughts about doing this and sometimes I feel I should just go to a few rehab meetings and pretend to be a drug addict to reassure the fact of how awful it probably actually is. 

Joe Paterno and Why His Inaction is Worthy of Jail Time

I guess what it takes to be a legend of a football coach is minimal morality. This should cause all Americans to step back and rethink their predispositions about football coaches; their leadership does not always carry over into the real world. The actions taken by Joe Paterno and his subordinates and higher ups are embarrassing. The fact that it took the courage of a victim in this catastrophe to jump start an investigation while the "adults" just "passed it along to their superiors" is shameful. Any one who is defending Joe Paterno right now has got to be brainwashed to some degree. To think that it was wrong for Joe Paterno to be fired is incredulous; the mindset that a person must have to not condemn the inaction by a revered "leader" in the football community. To flip over cars in ignorant protest. The institutional failure by Penn State to take action against this molester of children and the failure of Pennsylvania law to make this a legal obligation to tell police about this sort of thing is sad and naive. I'd be for passing a law to make it illegal to not report illegal activity and suspend post de facto laws temporarily to put Paterno and his colleagues in jail. Jail time thats well deserved.

Let me just explain the widespread condemnation of the inaction of Paterno and his staff the way I see it. First, it is not that any one would condone the actions of Zandusky or whatever his stupid name is. It is just that he clearly could not be expected to take rightful actions due to his perverse disease and evidently irrational actions (receiving oral sex and sex from children in his basement and in the actual confines of Penn State). That is why the inaction by Paterno and others within the Penn State system are rightfully coming under attack by the American public. Because they are right-minded individuals who should have the intellect capable of doing clearly what is the right thing to do; going directly to the police.

One might ask: How could they not have? They didn't because of individual failure, institutional brainwashing and because of the ineffectiveness of a hierarchal system that incentivizes discretion of atrocities. To see a grown man sodomizing a child and to not go directly to the police afterwards has to be influenced, to some powerful degree, by institutional brainwashing. And by brainwashing I mean the ability of a culture to make individuals within do inhuman and irrational things, much like military cultures. In military cultures, soldiers are culturally shaped to take irrational actions to save fellow soldiers:

"Why did you go back when you knew the likelihood of your survival was minimal?"
"I did it for my boys [fellow soldiers]"

Thus, the man who told Paterno what he saw must have done so because that is what the institution directed him to do. This should be a wake up call to the American legal system, specifically at the federal level, to enact legislation that mandates individuals to go to the police when they witness illegal activities that is accompanied by a severe punishment for failing to do so.

Another condemnation should go out to those students who are flipping over cars in protest of Paterno's firing and their "defense" for doing so. The defense being that the "media" is focusing on Paterno unjustly and to too much of a degree while ignoring the real perpetrator. And because of this media attentiveness Paterno was wrongly fired. First of all, Paterno looked the other way. And by looking the other way, I mean prolonging the molestation of children. People should be flipping over cars on these kids who are "sticking up" for their savior Joe Paterno because they have a perverse love for college football.

Why do nations go to war?

Some people have yet to grab any understanding of why things work the way they do in the international world. Accordingly, they fail to develop any rationale for why nations act the way they do. They've seen a global map and how there are national boundaries separating states and they ask themselves: Why don't states just leave each other alone? When people were children they didn't care to ask why states went to war. For example, when children learn about the history of nations they just take at face value. In other words, when they learn about the World Wars they just think that that is how it was and is. Children don't further ask why it was, or why it is. But when I got into college I was having an incredibly frustrating time trying to figure out why nations went to war. After I took a few international relations classes I became familiar with Political Scientists' explanations for why states go to war and I thought it would be beneficial for those who are not familiarized with why states go to war and give them a brief summary about why political scientists say they do.

First, political scientists examine human biology. They study what humans may be biologically predisposed to do. They do this by studying humans at the individual level and at the beginning stages of cooperative societies; tribes and bands. At the individual level, political scientists and anthropologists both claim that humans may have a predisposed inclination towards violence, but also an innate desire towards cooperative behavior with others. Proof of this cooperative behavior emanates from the fact that at some point in history humans began living with each other in societies; tribes and bands. In these tribes and bands, humans got into what could be described as tribal warfare. Anthropologists claim the cause for these wars had to do with scarce resources and an inability to convey their intentions. In other words, the fear of not being able to live because of diminishing resources caused tribes to go to war. Also, an inability to convey one's intentions leads tribes and individuals to assume their "foes" have malevolent intentions to give themselves the greatest protection of survival. In short, individuals and societies can be used as a framework for understanding why states go to war.

Likewise, what could be phrased the "resource theory" of international relations posits that states go to war because they want to provide sufficient resources for their society. As an example, these theorists contend that America went to war in Iraq because of the oil that could used for their society. They contend that Hitler tried to expand because of his understanding that he would not be able to provide for his people and thus needed to annex more land and resources for his people. However, there are many cases where states have gone to war when resources were clearly not the causation.

Secondly, the realists theory contends that states go to war because their is no overarching authority to prevent them from doing so. States, in essence, live in an international world of anarchy. States are subordinate to no higher entity. There are no rules in the international community. As a result, states take actions in what they perceive as their self-interest. Thus, states build up their military, invest heavily in weapon innovation, and make allies with others to gain more power and security. For example, they may preemptively strike neighboring countries who are becoming stronger to prevent a nation from becoming a formidable power in their region, which, in effect, would hinder their security. This is what happened during the Cold War. The United States and Russia were not sure of the others intentions, and therefore both partook in an arms race where both sides built an excessive amount of WMDs to beef up their security.

There are many other theories that purport to know why states go to war, but just having being aware of what political scientists believe why states go to war is enough if you don't feel like taking an international relations course or read an international relations book. Just to reiterate, political scientists all agree, to some degree, that states go to war for fear of their demise. Nations will take steps to protect themselves from others by either building up their military, attacking or overtaking other nations to attain economic sufficiency, and/or making strategic allies with other nations. Furthermore, political scientists also make the case that states go to war to satisfy the ego of leaders. Napoleon Bonaparte believed he was on a quest to take over the world during the Napoleonic Wars. Sadaam Hussein use to think of himself as a manifestation of some God, which in effect convinced him that he could take on the US Military in 2003 (they captured him in three weeks). 

Are humans becoming intolerant of war?

I know this is long but I worked really hard on it. It was for one of my college classes called International Security and Conflict. I read of lot of articles in preparation for writing this so it's not very opinionated but, to be honest, is probably informed by my liberal ideology. Nonetheless, it relies on a lot of facts. I am aware I don't have any followers, which makes me sad, but I recommend just reading this through and commenting on it if you want to. My professor really liked it and gave me an A on it and served it as a model for the class. I am self-aggrandizing myself a little bit but I just want to give people an incentive to read it and to mention that it is not just me who thinks you should read it (obvious bias). I hope you like it, but more importantly, I hope you read it.

Human Intolerance of War

Humans may have a deeply rooted, or even natural, tendency to support inter-group violence. Evidence of this can be gleaned from comparative studies between chimpanzees and humans. We both, at some point in history, descended from the same ancestor and evolved into different animals. It can be argued, however, that we still share some of the same biological traits. Beyond biology, we appear to share behaviors. As Thomas Hayden points out, a near indisputable parallel between chimpanzee raids and human wars is that conflict in both species tends to arise when there is environmental stress. Moreover, further studies between chimp and human warfare have found parallels that include the creation of “depopulated buffer zones between neighboring territories, amassing a vastly superior force before attacking, and ecstatic dances of triumph after a victory” (Hayden 2004, 2). In short, there is strong evidence that suggest that humans have a deeply rooted, or even natural, tendency to support inter-group violence due to our predisposed biology. But the case is not so solid that it cannot be questioned. There is also evidence that gives one the reason to believe that societies will grow less supportive of war over time, refuting this biological disposition. Because humans are uniquely rational animals and have the intellectual capacity to distinguish between what is moral and what is effective, societies will grow less supportive of war over time.  

First, humans have proven that they can identify an uncivilized and immoral act and stop its continuity. Dueling, at one time in history, was an accepted mean to settle a dispute between two individuals. Even one of America’s Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, partook in this act, and he did so even when he rationally concluded, as an individual, that it made no sense. The social expectations of his day instead determined his actions. Hamilton felt that he had to conform to “public prejudice in this particular.” Once society changed its view of dueling, the practice itself died off. If Burr had challenged Hamilton to a duel after society had concluded the act was “contemptible and stupid” (Mueller 2005, 152), he most likely would have laughed and continued to eat his breakfast without even thinking of accepting the offer. Violent and irrational practices like this are constantly being condemned and ended in contemporary human society. For instance, it used to be societally accepted that teachers could hit their students. Given that kids as a collective are hard to deal with and at times impossible to control without taking physical measures, when American society deemed it to be an immoral act it was put to an end.

In short, humans have the capability to identify immoral acts even when they make somewhat logical sense. And once an act is thought of by society to be uncivilized or immoral, humans usually have taken measures to stop it from occurring. Moreover, humans care so much so that they will take measures to stop it from occurring in places that they have no direct relations with. For example, there are organizations dedicated to protecting human rights globally, such as the Human Rights Watch. This proves that humans have an innate compassion for humanity, even if it is accompanied by an innate desire for violence.

Secondly, humans collectively are smart enough to determine what is moral, and what is effective. Statistically, state-based wars have declined in severity. Battle-death data shows that “the average battle-death toll per conflict in the 1950s was almost 10,000, while the equivalent figure for the new millennium has been less than 1,000” (Trends in Human Insecurity 2011, 169). Even acknowledging the fact that getting exact battle death (includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths) data is close to impossible, this statistic proves that there has been a decline in the deadliness of warfare since the 1950s. Also, the death toll from one-sided violence, which “refers to the lethal use of force against civilians by a government or an organized non-state armed group that results in 25 or more reported codable deaths in a calendar year” (Human Trends in Insecurity 2011, 177), was at its lowest number in 2008 since 1989. Another shift that occurred was that non-state armed groups were responsible for most of the deaths of one-sided violence, taking the place of governments, which was the case in 1989.  Furthermore, “there have been no wars between the major powers since the Korean War ended in 1953” (Cashman and Robinson 2007, 2). This evidence suggests that humans are becoming less tolerable of violence and of the killing of non-combatants, especially those that are carried out by governments. A recent example of this was when Syria was condemned by some countries in the international community, even Saudi Arabia, for their attacks on its civilians. The international community is shifting to a stance that values human life.

Unfortunately, war in the developing regions has become endemic. Therefore, with these trends in mind, one could come to the conclusion that societal progression in developing countries is tantamount to decreasing the amount of conflicts worldwide. For instance, globalization is an example of societal progression. Economic integration between countries has led participating countries to be increasingly more diplomatic/benevolent and less coercive/threatening. Accordingly, economic integration gives nations incentives to cooperate. In other words, humans can rationally develop a system that encourages cooperation and diminish the likelihood for inter-group violence.

Thirdly, even if human beings have a biological disposition for violence, it can be surprisingly easy to suppress. Garnering nationalist support is an exploitive endeavor of humans’ irrationality. A leader of a nation that tells his or her people that another nation wants to kill their children, subjugate their men, and rape their women is tapping into human being’s primordial brain. “There is a structure deep inside the brain called the amygdala, which plays a key role in fear and aggression…when subjects are presented with a face of someone from a different race, the amygdala gets metabolically active – aroused, alert, ready for action” (Sapolsky 2006, 8). Thus, images of a differing race arouse fear and aggression within people because they instinctually believe that that person is representative of a malevolent adversarial group. “Subtly bias the subject beforehand to think of people as individuals rather than as members of a group, and the amygdala does not budge” (Sapolsky 2006, 8). This suggests that humans fear opposing groups rather than an opposing individual. In essence, humans have a biological disposition for violence when they see members of a different race. This occurs, however, with no knowledge about the person or any rationality involved whatsoever.

Despite our biological inclinations, however, more recent studies show that “a person who has a lot of experience with people of different races, and the amygdala does not activate” (Sapolsky 2006, 8). The international environment of the twenty-first century allows countries to practice diplomacy. It allows countries to get a sense of another’s intentions by interacting with each other. Furthermore, communication between cultures is much more plausible now. In the past, individuals of different tribal groups were not able to communicate with one another because of differing language. Thus, they were not able to convey their intentions. In other words, they were in the state of nature. They were in a constant security dilemma. Groups instinctively had to assume the other had devious intentions to best assure themselves of protection and survival. Based on the knowledge gained from the study, a rational human being can come to the conclusion that interaction between races mitigates fear and aggressive impulses, something that societies have increasingly become more engaged with.

Fourthly, after humans exhausted resources, which in turn caused them to fight others for dwindling resources, they developed a system that distributed resources more effectively. As a result, more and more nations are able to avoid a cause of war, and the most common cause at that. In essence, if resources in a given societal area were no longer able to support all of the people in that area, then violence would occur. Violence would most likely occur under these circumstances because animals have a natural desire to survive. Thus, they will fight for their own survival, if necessary. Joining forces, then, was the most rational calculation to maintain survival. There is primordial evidence that supports this theory. For instance, less aggressive primates “tend to live in lush rain forests where food is plentiful and life is easy” (Sapolsky 2006, 2). In other words, when food is enough for all living things the aggressiveness amongst them declines. In short, the instinct for survival when humans are experiencing fatally declining resources initiates the irrational impulse towards violence. Humans that rationally decide how to sustain their resources and distribute it evenly can thwart violence while still maintaining their survival.

Fifthly, primates, with whom humans share 98% of their DNA with, have proven themselves to be rational creatures. Therefore, it would do humans a disservice if they did not compare themselves with primates and identify possible biological similarities. First, primate pacifism is practiced among certain species. In 27 different species of primates, it has been observed that primates can make up after a fight. This is significant because it reduces the likelihood of further conflicts between previous enemies, and reducing conflicts as a whole. Societies, similarly, have taken reconciliatory actions with other societies. For instance, the United Nations was established to prevent another World War II. Second, it has been observed that coalitions can be made among some primate species. In these coalitions, reciprocity is practiced and a sense of justice can be administered. Even reconciliation and cooperation is practiced among the most violent primates. “Tension-reducing reconciliation, in other words, is most likely to occur among animals who already are in the habit of cooperating and have an incentive to keep doing so” (Sapolsky 2006, 4).  

In essence, a primate society has the power to determine individual primate action. This serves as a comparative model to human societies. For example, if a society fosters an attitude against fighting war, that society will be less inclined to fight wars. Japan and Germany used to be extremely aggressive nations. Now they have transformed themselves into very peaceful nations by changing their cultures. Germany is not even allowed to print war propaganda.

Accordingly, society has the ability to redefine social morals. In some societies, men gain recognition from their peers based on what their society has determined to be “manly.” In tribal societies, a man’s prestige was generally recognized in battle. However, in other societies men received that same prestige through nonviolent means. “But, as was the case with the Bush Negroes of Dutch Guiana, it is artistic ability which is necessary to win a girl’s approval, the same young man would have to be carving rather than going out on a war party” (Mead 1990, 3). This is already noticeable in modern industrialized societies. In America, as one example, the prestige of a person is determined by their job, and the value of a job is determined by society through how much income one is allotted and how noble of a job it is; also determined by society. It is the same human biological desire for recognition, but it is achieved through different means.

In other words, humans have a biological predisposition to be valued by others in society. That value, however, does not have to be gained through violence.  A rational society can redirect that recognition seeking desire into more productive and nonviolent means, as proven by today’s industrialized societies. Furthermore, even primate culture influences how primates act. A study where almost all of the most aggressive dominant males in a savanna baboon group died off birthed a culture of less aggression and more affiliating behavior. This culture persisted even when subsequent aggressive male baboons entered the group. Culture determined social behavior in this case.

In conclusion, humans have the intellectual capability to rationally determine what is moral and what is effective. The evidence suggest that human beings are leaving their violent past behind them. In the movie, Soldiers of Conscience, it said that soldiers in past wars were recorded only shooting at their enemy 25% of the time during battle, suggesting that humans have an either innate, or rational, disposition to not kill other humans. Also, wars are costly. The human toll is significant in itself and the financial toll on countries, which has been linked to the decline of once vibrant economies, is significant as well. Germany’s population after the Thirty Years War “declined from 21 million to under 13.5 million” (Mueller 2005, 150). Thus, the magnitude of devastation that wars have caused in the past, and continue to cause in the present will prove to be too much. It will cause humans to reassess the morality of war and its effectiveness, which could lead to its obliteration. 

Works Cited

Cashman, Greg, and Leonard C. Robinson. 2007. An Introduction to the Causes of War. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Hayden, Thomas. 2004. “The Roots of War: Can Humanity ever escape its age-old legacy of battle?” US News & World Report, 26 April: 44-50.

Mead, Margaret. 1990. “Warfare is Only an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity.” In The Dolphin Reader. 2nd edition. ed. Douglas Hunt. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffflin Company. 415-421.

Mueller, John. 2005. “The Obsolescence of Major War.” In Conflict After the Cold War: Arguments on Causes of War and Peace. 2nd edition. ed. Richard K. Betts. New York: Longman. 146-157.

Sapolsky, Robert M. 2006 “A Natural History of Peace.” Foreign Affairs, Jan: 1-9.

Soldiers of Conscience. Dir. Catherine Ryan and Gary Weimberg. Public Broadcasting Service, 2007. Film.

“Trends in Human Insecurity.” Human Security Report. Oxford University Press, 2011. Web. 3 Sept. 2011. <http://www.hsrgroup.org////‌HumanSecurityReport-Part3-TrendsInHumanInsecurity.pdf>.

Can Obama Win Reelection?

President Obama has hit the lowest approval rating of his presidency this past week. It is now at 40%. Thus, his re-electability is in question. Obama is angering his own party for not being liberal enough while simultaneously angering the opposition for being too liberal. Obama, it seems, is not pleasing anyone. In my view, I don’t think that Obama is the liberal socialist that the Republicans depict him as nor the malleable centrist that liberals lambast him for being. As a liberal, I too have found myself angry with the president for giving in to Republican demands while not being given the credit for doing so. My theory for this is that he’s cognizant of the dangerous political climate of the 21^st century. He understands the powerful influence of the media and the impressionable character of the American voter. But in terms of Americans coming together, it seems that all can unify around their dissatisfaction with President Obama.

Reviewing the history of incumbent presidents running for reelection, one can glean from the statistics and come to the conclusion that Obama is more than unlikely to win than likely. Every president since FDR has lost their reelection bid when unemployment was above 7.2%; President Reagan won reelection when it was just that in 1984. Even the White House’s own economists project that the unemployment rate will be hovering around 8.2% in the fall of 2012, the time of the election.

Furthermore, approval ratings of a president in close proximity to a reelection bid are somewhat suggestive of the chances a president has to win. Since the 1940 presidential election, with the exception of Harry Truman, every President seeking reelection has won when their approval ratings were above 50% eight months before their respective elections. Obama would have to increase his approval ratings by at least 10% in seven months.

Therefore, President Obama has a chance, but just a chance at best, probably a bad chance. But since I’m supportive of Obama I’m optimistic. I want Obama to win reelection more than I wanted Ugs before the cashier at JC Penny told me they were for girls. The probability of Obama winning reelection would increase significantly if a non-formidable candidate like Sarah Palin somehow took the GOP nomination, or maybe Rick Perry with his politically incorrect rhetoric. But as I watch Mitt Romney looking strong and confident I’m afraid that he’s going to be our next president. It has little to do with his beliefs, his policy endorsements, or his history in the private sector or as Governor of Massachusetts. It has mostly to do with the economy and the lack of national approval of President Obama.

Contrary to the statistics, I still feel that Obama can win because of his incredible oratorical skills that took him to the White House in 2008. I think Obama has the rhetorical capacity capable of convincing me that having other guys take my girlfriend out on dates makes sense. You saw this if you watched President Obama on September 9 when he was pitching his jobs speech to Congress. He was in vintage form, speaking with a confidence that has been asleep for the past few years only to be abruptly awoken for this speech. I am also optimistic because I don’t think that Obama has been explicit in his accomplishments. When it comes closer to the election, he will have the opportunity to convey his accomplishments to gather that same enthusiasm he had last election cycle.

Kabul; New York

It's really odd to see America exposing the corruption in Afghanistan so viciously while at the same time not exposing the corruption in their own country. Clearly, America's trying desperately to portray Afghanistan as a country that is incapable of governing their own nation. Whereas America is a country that is capable of governing a multitude. Right. America; the nation that attacked Iraq for no other reason than to further its empire, or possibly to avenge George Bush's fathers death threat. Yes. We are competent. So competent that after the financial crises which featured an innumerable amount of devious bankers, CEOs, stock brokers, etc. not one of them, according to law suits, is a criminal worthy of jail time. They are just criminals worthy of settlements. Give us some money, says the Justice Department and the SEC, and we'll keep anything from going inside of a place that naturally pushes things outside of a place. Basically, the law is saying, fraudulently make tons a money and then give a small portion of it back. Think of it as a tax. Therefore, we both make money. The downside will be no one else will. But that's okay because their not us. And shouldn't we look after us, as opposed to the US. We're people too. We want a nice house too.

 Its hypocritical of America to portray the Afghan government as one of corruption when they're copying the same unethical and oligarchical tactics that America does. The Kabul Bank pays politicians to push their political agenda. How is that any different from corporate campaign donors. Why would they give huge sums of money to politicians unless they vote the way that they want them to? They wouldn't. Obama's largest campaign donor was Goldman Sachs. This is the explanation as to why he hasn't been hard on Wall Street. America needs to lead by example and not lead by hypocrisy; preaching the right thing to do while doing the wrong thing. And then subsequently condemning corrupt behavior when corrupt behavior is inherent in its own system. In Dexter Filkins article in the New Yorker he quotes someone as saying 'if this were America, fifty people would be in jail," speaking of the Kabul Bank and its corrupt financial relationship with the Afghan government. But how can one say that? The Financial Crisis has produced zero significant sentences. And the guys they are going after are the line coaches; they're barely in the game. If one of the Wall Street CEOs went to jail that would send a message with fire burning on the end. But they didn't know what was going on, they say, just as the main players at Kabul Bank, like Karzai's son, said. They didn't know. How could they? They were just the fucking guys in charge. It's like a football coach saying 'I didn't know my running back hasn't ran more than a five yard run in the past two seasons.' Send these CEO assholes to jail and miscreant behavior will decrease.

America the Oligarch

The past few weeks have exposed the shortfalls of representative democracy in this current political environment. Politicians feel compelled to go onto TV networks and debase each other in the hope that it ends with multiple networks using their clip. For instance, Republican Joe Wash posting a YouTube video telling President Obama that he should be 'ashamed' of himself. Then subsequently appearing on the networks saying that Obama isn't taking the debt debate 'seriously.' I mean, come on. How can one support a politician as overtly disingenuous as this guy. But obviously his constituents do, or his backers do.

Voters need to be aware of the parties past and present objectives. At one time, parties existed to primarily play to the voters. In other words, the parties gave their representatives the flexibility to give they're constituents what they want regardless of what the party agenda as a whole was trying to accomplish. Now, the political party's objectives are to push their own agenda through supporting candidates who will succumb to the party's position with their wealth of party cash.

Yes, this is oligarchic. Anyone who argues that this country is a democracy will be hard-pressed to defend their view. This explains Obama's dealings with Wall Street and the Financial Sector. This is why the Financial Reform bill changed the financial sector very little and has had little influence. How can a President do what is right for the country when there are so many significant donors that were crucial to their get elected?

The problem with our government isn't just incompetence. It is a combination of incompetence and the political environment. How can you do the right thing where campaign donors want you to do the other? Its less of incompetence and more of incapability. Politicians are incapable of using their independent judgement mixed with public opinion because they have to worry also about their campaign finances. If independent judgement tells a congressmen or women that increasing revenue mixed with responsible cuts in entitlements is the right thing to do, but can't, something is wrong with the system. But how do you get around a Supreme Court ruling that deems corporate spending a form of free speech. Is it possible? It is, but is it likely?

It doesn't seem likely in the foreseeable future, for we have the most conservative Supreme Court in our nations history. More liberal judges would have to be appointed. But this also raises the question of judicial accountability. Every other sect of our government is accountable in some form, except the judicial branch. Yes, Presidents have the authority to appoint justices, but afterwards, the justices are immune from all accountability. And I understand the justices have to interpret the Constitution as objectively as they can and rule to what they think the documents' intentions are, but common sense tells us that spending in this environment towards political campaigns isn't a fair form of free speech, and thus shouldn't be allowed. I am a proponent of consistency in the law, as most nations and people are, but sometimes independent judgement and common sense should be the formula for decisions in certain cases, like this one.