Thanks For The Memories

One common theme in this blog is the concept of the collapse of systems. Human beings survive and progress through the construction of various systems. The family is a system. As is school. Churches are systems. The government is a system. In nomadic societies there are more primitive tribal systems that are utilized to preserve order. In virtually all areas of life there are systems in place which people use in order to define themselves, leverage their efficiency, protect themselves, establish boundaries, and better communicate. Cultural and national classifications are used to identify people as a group, as well as to provide common ground. These systems are based on the premise that the group is inherently more powerful and effective than an individual could be. And in many cases, this is true.

Take a moment and think about how you identify yourself. For example, I am a woman. A mother. An American. I do not affiliate with a specific religious group, but many people do. I am Caucasian. Of European decent. I am a Californian. From a scientific perspective, I am a homo sapien. These are all categories utilized to give order to life. To create understanding and structure so that we can progress as a society from a basic point of common understanding. Language is a system. Math is a system. Use of these systems on a large scale allows for efficiency in communication and common parameters for growth.

Any student of science knows that inherent in the building of systems is the eventual breakdown of said systems. In biology, birth gives way to death. In physics, energy changes forms and eventually degrades. In social science, systems for the advancement of various groups are created, take on one form, then change, breakdown, and either cease to exist, or reemerge in another form. Sometimes this happens quickly, and sometimes it takes decades or even centuries to change. But eventually, the system will give way to new ideas and formats.

One example of a long held paradigm currently in flux, is that of the military industrial complex. Historically speaking, that term is mainly a cold war pejorative used in reference to the relationship between the military and the various industries that exist to support it.  In America, companies like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon are large defense contractors; private businesses that earn enormous profits by developing and providing military equipment. The key term here is "private." These are private businesses. Operated by civilians. Not government owned and operated. This is a critical distinction because in other countries which are not operated as democracies, the government controls both the military and the production of technology. North Korea and Iran are both under constant scrutiny with regards to their government sponsored nuclear programs. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were both in totalitarian control of all tangentially relevant aspects of their military. Science, technology, aviation, manufacturing, weapon production and distribution, even agriculture; all government controlled.

Post World War II, this traditional alliance in America between the military and private business has been largely axiomatic. We have utilized fairly traditional and straightforward models of military aggression. We have four branches of the military.  We need uniforms, supplies, weapons, technology, transport. It's all pretty easy for people to wrap their minds around. We have all seen war movies or military news footage. We all have a common idea of what the face of the American military is. We accept that as a necessary part of our lives. We see it as the vanguard of our birthright as Americans. The need for a large military seems inherent in our quest to preserve and promote democracy. It defines us to a certain extent.

Enter 9/11. The game changer.

Technically, the 9/11 attacks were a terrorist attack on American soil. They were not an invasion. They were not intended to have permanence. They were a protest of sorts. An ideological temper tantrum. The attackers ostensibly have deep resentment of America and Western culture in general. So they made a statement. They showed us our vulnerability. They used our own freedom against us. Made us think twice about immigration. Made us question the safety of our transportation. Made us stop and and think about what we have. What we want. What we stand for. It was the seminal culturally redefining moment of my lifetime. The moment in which you realized that as great as your life in America is, the freedom you have comes at a very steep price. Every citizen, institution and ideal was and is forever changed by the events of that day. Not the least of which has been the traditional concept of military. On that day, rescue workers became surrogates of the military. Civilians were called upon to behave in valorous roles traditionally only reserved for men and women in uniform. Journalists were on the front lines, this time not as observers but as potential intended targets. In that moment, every soldier was a civilian and every civilian a soldier. We were united as never before. It was an exhilarating, terrifying, revolutionary and evolutionary. Long held boundaries and group identities were broken down. The bankers who jumped to their deaths from the World Trade Center were every bit the heroes that any soldier who raised a flag at Iwo Jima ever was. Who among us can hear the phrase "Let's Roll" without tearing up at the thought of Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers on Flight 93, who put their own immediate safety firmly behind their patriotism in an attempt to derail an attack on the Pentagon? Each and every one of these Americans died a hero. The bankers, a living embodiment of our cherished free market which has provided a home for capitalist ideas. The rescue workers, a symbol of American selflessness and commitment to progress through ensuring the safety of our populace. The journalists, fierce protectors of our right to open information dissemination and free speech.

These are but a few examples of the new face of the American soldier.

This is not an attempt to in any way diminish the role of our men and women in uniform. They have always and will continue to set the standard in this country for the ideals of patriotism and sacrifice for the common gain. They are the front line. The public face of American strength. But what has changed since 9/11, is the idea of what it means to be a civilian. When all the wars are on foreign soil, it is easy to distinguish between military and non military. But when the war is at home, the enemy ambiguous and chameleon like in its form, this becomes a much more difficult task. The 9/11 attacks used our private corporations to expose our vulnerability. If the airline industry had been government owned and operated, it is unlikely that this type of attack would have even been conceived, let alone executed. So in this way, we as a nation now rest on a fulcrum. We have to decide how much influence the government can and should have on private businesses. For example, should Apple be forced to stop outsourcing the manufacturing of its goods to China for fear that there could be potential associated national security risks? What role does privately funded science and technology play in our efforts to thwart potential cyber attacks? Does there reach a point when private industry holds so much control over our safety and progress, that the LACK of governmental control creates vulnerability to foreign enemies? How do we balance those issues? And, correspondingly, aren't we all, in fact, soldiers for freedom at this point? Our ideology and way of life is certainly under attack. Isn't every teacher who helps a student understand Locke's "Social Contract Theory", in reality, preparing that student for an ideological battle in a world where the freedoms that we hold dear are increasingly becoming the exception and not the rule? The theories with which that teacher arms her students, that knowledge, is her contribution to the continuation of American life as we know it. Isn't every small business man who creates jobs by exercising his right to utilize the free market, actually demonstrating the power of the aggregate in a society that rewards creativity and progress instead of thwarting or stealing it? Is that man not also a soldier for economic freedom?

These are not new concepts. Every generation has had its wars. Every generation has felt its system breaking down around them and questioned what the future holds. The Civil War was fought over domestic ideological differences. During the Cold War, communism was the perceived threat to American life. Now it is Islamic terrorism. At each juncture of American history, its citizens have been called on to rise to the challenge, allow the old system to disintegrate, and make way for a better and more efficient model. This is no different. Our military industrial complex still exists as a viable force in the world, albeit a changing one. The armed forces remains our best line of defense, their immediate sacrifice is immeasurably valuable. But ask yourself today, the day we honor so many who have given so much on our behalf, what does it mean to you in a post 9/11 world to be an American civilian? What are you doing to keep the American dream of freedom and prosperity alive? Are you willing to soldier your ideals?

If so? Let's roll.

BB

Location. Location. Location.

This morning Facebook, one of the most highly anticipated IPO's in history, began trading on the NASDAQ. One question I hear asked frequently is "How can Facebook make any money when there is no charge for subscriptions?" People are constantly worried that this format will change, and somehow this free party will grind to a halt. The standard answer about profitability is, of course: advertising.  Conventional wisdom holds that Facebook, while posing as a social media website, is, in reality, the most prolific information cache currently available in private industry. People log in and voluntarily provide their names, birth dates, educational histories, employment information, relationship status, children's names and ages. hobbies and interests, vacation plans and pictures, political views and affiliations, and, (in my opinion) most importantly, their location. This is of tremendous interest to advertisers who could hypothetically spend millions on market research and yet never obtain access to such specificities about their intended victims - I mean, audience. Facebook has done the legwork for them and ostensibly provides a heretofore unavailable windfall of personalized information. The ultimate database. All provided with no subterfuge.  And all of this is done by offering the public the one thing that is irresistible to most human beings:

A chance to tell his or her side of the story.

A public resume. A voice. A visible record of life displayed as the participant wishes it to be. Maybe the record is accurate. Maybe it isn't. But each person has his or her free opportunity to set the record of his or her individual life straight. You got grounded unfairly for bad grades in school? Complain about it on Facebook.  You don't like the way something went on a particular day at work? Rant about it on Facebook. Your son got a baseball scholarship to UCLA? Brag about it on Facebook. Your hair happens to look perfect on that one day when no one was around to witness it? Memorialize it for posterity on Facebook. You shot a hole-in-one but no one can stand playing golf with you so you can't prove it? Get a cart guy to take your picture so you can post it on Facebook. People want to know why Facebook is so popular? It is not a mystery. It is human vanity.

One day a friend of mine and I were questioning why it suddenly seems to be so important for everyone in the world to be thought of as being "hot."  Attractiveness is a Darwinistic reality. It is a basic mating tool. People have always cared about being attractive to whatever person with which they wish to mate and that will never change. But the current trend seems to be this idea that somehow everyone has to be attractive to everyone else. Not just to the person he or she might wish to date or marry. Not even just to whatever group of people a person may be attracted to. Heterosexual females are supposed to be hot to homosexual males. Sixty year old men are supposed to be hot to twenty year old females. All women are supposed to judge and rate all other women based on attractiveness. Men are supposed to care if other men think they are hot. I found this confusing until one day my youngest daughter put a very simple spin on it by saying to me, "Mom, all people need to believe that they are attractive."

Indeed. Yes. A teenager sees it so clearly. All people need to believe that they are attractive. And Facebook offers all people that chance! Every day all people can demonstrate attractiveness. Not just physical attractiveness, but also intellectual prowess, spiritual strength, comedic superiority, compassionate courage, emotional resilience - all of these things can be promoted daily on a persons Facebook page. AND if you are sick of all the people in your immediate life, you may now reach a virtually unlimited audience! You can connect with people from your past whom you never would have possibly seen again if not for access to the internet. You can make new friends based on common interests. You can become friends with people from other cultures with whom you have no common ground and learn about their lives. The possibilities seem endless! And the best part is: You are in control. You can add or delete people from your friends list to demonstrate their relative importance in your life. You can block people from ever seeing you at all! You can take a picture that is average at best (we've all done it) photoshop it to an unrecognizable perfection, and use it as your public face to the world! You can show your life as a non stop party. A goodwill tour in which you are the star. Or you can showcase your political views. Perhaps use your page to promote your religious beliefs. You can tell the world your problems and seek sympathy and enlightenment from a larger pool. Whatever you like. It is your page.

This illusion of control, this daily vanity project is an intoxicating premise. Brilliant, actually. It combines the human need for acceptance and interaction with the previously unavailable ability to electronically manipulate and represent truths in whatever way best suits the user. It's not so much a lie, as it is a snapshot of life poised out there in virtual posterity. It's like a movie poster. Or a political ad. A moment in time captured and presented to achieve a specific purpose. It is groundbreaking because previously this kind of spin was only available to famous or wealthy people. So in this way, Facebook gives power to the proletariat. And that is a worthy enterprise.

Of course as movie stars and politicians have long known, this kind of scrutiny often becomes a double edged sword. Whatever face you present to the public, once accepted, can be either difficult to maintain; (Connor, you guys have been in a relationship for three years now, why aren't you married?) or it can be used against you in a legal battle (Emily, you told me you didn't have my money, but then you posted pictures of your new car online...). Checking in it at a movie when you told your parents that you were at a friends house will likely get you in trouble.  Once you go on the record, you are ON THE RECORD. Novice users of social media are learning the hard way that it may not always be the best idea to publicly record every move you make if you are not prepared for all the potential unintended consequences. As with any kind of major change, there will be lagging corresponding legal and governmental issues to contend with ranging from privacy issues to libel and beyond. It is a work in progress.

I am not a stock analyst nor do I profess to know what makes a company valuable. Most people will accept the premise that the seemingly infinite database that Facebook can access will translate into advertising revenue. I am certain there are other niches of the business that only insiders are privy to that are going to be profitable. From my point of view, however, I see the potential value in that Facebook users are more than willing to provide public knowledge of their locations. They will check in at restaurants and resorts. Promote car dealerships and specific brands. Tag photographers and event planners in pictures they post. The users insatiable need to showcase accomplishments (new house, celebratory dinner for latest promotion) added to the desire to be accepted by a group dynamic (latest iPad, advance tickets to movie screening) and wish to influence others perspectives (cool mantra learned at yoga studio, daily bible quote) all adds up to each individual person becoming his own living breathing advertisement. It is leverage upon leverage. In this way, the notion of collecting personal information for distribution to outside sources seems minuscule and outdated. Who needs advertising when each person is his own ad?  The traditional model of targeted advertising becomes archaic when contrasted with the ability to harness this potential international vanity project starring each person presenting him or herself as attractive; utilizing Facebook to promote whatever commercial interest is making that person feel most attractive. Getting your braces off. Buying new clothing. Restoring old cars. Hitting the gym. Attending church.  Hosting a charity function. Volunteering at a homeless shelter. Hiking a mountain you wish to have preserved. Traveling abroad. Whatever your cause. Facebook wants to know. You are the advertising. You are the message.

When you look at it that way, stop and ask yourself, who is actually providing the greater service?

BB

I Do Not Like Them In A Box...

If ever there was an overused phrase in modern American life, it has got to be "think outside the box." This mandate has become so tired and empty, it is utterly devoid of meaning at this point. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself what that phrase even means or why people use it so frequently? How many times in a given week do you hear people say things like..."That Steve Jobs really knew how to think outside the box" or  "What we need you to do right now, Jenny, is think outside the box..." It is hyperbole upon hyperbole. A mindless mantra that is chanted to the masses in the hopes of inspiring some sort of action. The question is: what kind of action does the person using this term actually seek to inspire?

If you break this idea down, one thing becomes clear. Use of the word "box" serves as some kind of metaphor for what ever the defining norms of a situation are. The "box" is societal norms. It is religious norms. It is governmental norms. It is corporate norms. It is something that confines you. Constricts you. Apparently, it keeps whoever is in it, from thinking creatively. It keeps that person from excelling. It keeps that person from achieving. So whatever you do, according to this mandate, you need to make sure you are doing it OUTSIDE the box. That much we know.

Here comes the confusing part. What, exactly, does it MEAN to be outside? And how far outside does one need to be? People who abuse this phrase love to use examples of successful endeavors that ostensibly came from "out of the box" thinking. Jefferson and The American Constitution. Kennedy and space exploration. Al Gore and the internet. (Ok, maybe just the first two). These represent new frontiers pioneered by people who didn't allow norms to keep their ideas from reaching fruition. And when you focus on those kinds of accomplishments, it would seem that the sky is literally the limit. That there is no way to be too far out of that suffocating tomb of a box. That norms can be stretched, redefined, remastered into new and better ways of living. But wait! If you stop and think about it another way, guys like Charles Manson and David Koresh were ALSO thinking outside the box. They didn't care about societal norms, nor government or religious standards. And they were able to convince other people to go along with their ideas. That's kind of upsetting. So taking their behavior at face value, it would appear that one can, in fact, be too far outside the box. Then, if you think about it yet another way, while these two may outside YOUR box, from Stalin's point of view, they were aiming pretty low, and are still firmly entrenched inside his box. And for that matter, didn't Jefferson own slaves and encourage mass slaughter of Native Americans in his quest to ensure "freedom"? So really, what kind of box did he have in the first place? When you put this kind of thought into these examples, you realize that, like anything else, thinking outside the box is a matter of context. The context of Jefferson's life is not the context of today's world. So it is impossible to know exactly what a person means when he encourages you to think in this manner. Which is why it has become such a meaningless thing to demand.

Lets say that you are in a sales meeting, and your boss tells you that you need to think outside the box in order to increase your productivity. Are you going to come back to him a few days later with some extra cool (but safe) sales pitches? Or are you going to suggest some kind of major overhaul in the organization that would allow autonomy, decentralization of power, and a potentially different compensation structure? And if you DID do the latter, would anyone at your job even take those suggestions seriously? Or would your manager be threatened and say "Wait a minute, Doug. That isn't what we meant when we said "out of the box." We just wanted you to think of a few nifty sales promos we could tie to our latest product launch." Would you be rewarded for your creativity or would you be shut down because you took it too far?

Therein lies the inherent problem with organizations and groups. In order for the group to remain powerful, it requires allegiance and loyalty. If too many people start to think for themselves, the group becomes fragmented and loses its authority. This is true of small groups, such as a clique of teenage girls who gain power by bullying other girls into conforming to their methods; and large groups, such as political parties who undermine new and modern thinking by bullying news organizations into keeping the focus on issues which they deem appropriate. If you hear a political candidate suggest that he will think "outside the box", do you take that to mean he will lower corporate taxes instead of raising them? Or does it mean that he will overhaul the entire tax system? When you see the Tea Party demand accountability in Washington, do you find that they are asking for an actual structural change that might result in a lower incidence of legislation? Or do you believe that they just want to gain power in the status quo system and utilize that power to achieve their own agenda without making any meaningful adjustments? One thing that is particularly telling, is that whenever groups such as the Tea Party or Green Party gain notoriety, they are immediately categorized by the media as offshoots of the right or the left, and subsequently claimed by the two existing parties in an effort to keep their death grip on the populace firmly in tact. These fledgling parties are never just taken at face value based on whatever their own tenants may be. There is always qualification.

To wit: "Well you know, Bob, the Tea Party is really just a bunch of angry white Republicans who want the party to lean further to the right."

"Yes, well, Susan, I did know that. That reminds me of the time the Green Party cost Al Gore the 2000 election, which was so unnecessary because when you stop and think about it, the Green Party is really just a bunch of angry hippies who want the Democrats to lean further to the left."

This is the rhetoric. This is the way the mainstream marginalizes the important message that potential third parties can deliver. The media claim to be frustrated with the state of the economy, gas prices, unemployment, and any other issue that effects voters. Yet when enough people get together and try to think of "out of the box" solutions, all anyone with a public forum can do is immediately place those people within a known context of the existing two party system. In this way, it becomes increasingly difficult for any truly unconventional thinker to gain traction.  For a recent private sector example we can look at Facebook's acquisition of Instagram. Why deal with a competitor who is a little edgier than you are when you can simply make them so much like you that you no longer have to be edgy? So in that way, Facebook becomes like General Motors. They cease to be the next big thing and become the norm. They go from being out of the box, to BEING the box. That is why change in this country is so incremental. The forward thinkers are either marginalized out of existence, or bought and paid for by existing entities.

Until the next person comes along and pushes boundaries in a way that is provocative or lucrative enough to make a difference. Change is slow. But it happens. Progress requires the dismantling of outdated systems and thoughts and the nurturing of more modern ideas. This applies to all areas of life. Don't let your progress be dictated by other peoples intellectual laziness and mental sluggishness. Don't become marginalized just because it is easier to be part of a larger group than it is to remain true to your ideals. I'm sure Instagram once had its own business goals that had nothing to do with Facebook. And Ariana Huffington is finding out the hard way that even $315 million isn't going to get her editorial control at AOL.

Perhaps the best way one can truly attempt to think outside the box, is to remember that the goal is to not eventually become the box.

BB

A Reason For Reason

I am a Libertarian. This blog, however, is not a Libertarian blog. It is a blog exploring the concept of thinking for yourself.  The idea of not letting other people dictate the agenda or tell you what you should care about. I am not a professional journalist, nor do I wish to be. What I am, is an activist. I seek to inspire dialogue, independent thinking and action.

What I find frustrating about the current political climate, is that the issues being discussed in the mainstream are not necessarily issues that would compel me to act or even care. Sometimes its because the concepts are so large, so overwhelming, that I don't even have the vaguest idea of what I would do, assuming I was even in a position to do anything in the first place. These issues are absolutely enormous in scope. There are so many moving parts. So many details. And to complicate matters further, the political landscape seems to change so quickly, that by the time one gains even a fundamental understanding of whats going on, the dynamic has already shifted. Then, oddly, those very same situations appear to drag on indefinitely, devoid of any meaningful resolution. It is as if things are simultaneously flying by yet somehow, not progressing at all.

In many ways, politics is merely another aspect of life, no different than any other big picture experience. One could take any crucial moment in time, break that experience down, try to understand what it means in your life, then subsequently take the appropriate action. This is the entire purpose of rational thought. First, reason. Then, act. Let's take, for example, the birth of a child. If you examined your role as a new parent to this baby, you would see conflicting perspectives. You could be (as I was) intimidated by the enormity of the undertaking.  A baby brings excitement and energy, and creates a shift in your responsibility in the world. In that way, the new life brings with it forward momentum. Taken from another point of view, that same child will require a lifetime of commitment and consistency, which grounds you. The event brings weight and seriousness to your life and slows your pace in certain respects. Therefore, the experience becomes two sides of the same coin. It pushes you forward in incremental ways, yet in the macro sense, it forces you to be stable. This is a delicate balance. Frequently by the time you have figured out what to do in a specific scenario, the baby is older, and already has an entirely different set of needs. And so you miss your window. You make mistakes. Whatever. And that is frustrating.

Upon closer examination, the flip side of this issue illustrates that while the specific circumstances of child rearing may not have gone exactly the way you intended moment to moment, your child grows to a different stage, and you know what? You get another chance. You build on your past success and failure. You learn. You keep at it. And in that way, the child goes from being a daily project, to becoming a defining aspect of your overall person. The incremental gives way to the large scale. Things start to make more sense. You still make mistakes. But the child keeps growing and you keep getting more chances. And with each new chance, you can draw on the benefit of your past experience. The forward motion that the small daily regimen brings propels your life onward. And the aggregate of the compounded experience, when understood, lends stability to your overall life. It is progress tempered by steadiness.

This is not dissimilar from the thought process that, when applied accurately, allows us to form useable political opinions. Much like a child, the political arena is unpredictable, ever changing, varied, exciting and at times, frustrating. By the time we believe we have a grasp on whats going on, often the climate has changed. But we do have the benefit of experience in this scenario, as well. Perhaps even more so because politics is such an all encompassing topic.  Examining individual issues that are of importance can make the larger concepts manageable. It is easy to throw your hands up and scowl because you have no idea what derivatives are, let alone how they contributed to our current financial crisis. It is even easier to feel helpless in the face of yet another conflict brewing in the middle east after billions have been spent in that area to date with seemingly no benefit and no end in sight. You may ask yourself, as one person, what can I possibly do to affect any kind of change? I ask myself the same thing. And I have concluded, more than once, that the bulk of political issues are so complex and specific, it would be difficult to formulate any kind of actionable plan beyond voting. I mean, we all know we can vote. That is our gift. Our mandate. Our voice. Our weapon. But it is one thing to vote. And it is quite another to take the time to understand how to make your vote count.

In my opinion, the best way to begin to become more politically active, is to realize that no matter how intimidating an issue may be, there are ways to understand the concepts behind it. I still don't know exactly how to potty train a child, I fail miserably at parent teacher conferences, and have yet to master the art of listening to my children's full explanations before getting prematurely angry. But I am learning. Parenting is a long haul. It requires discipline. And I know that I cannot allow the weight of the responsibility nor the expansiveness of the idea to keep me from trying to use my rational mind to reflect on specific situations and apply them to my overall experience.

In short, I approach parenting the same way I approach politics.

What becomes evident over time, is that whether it is your personal life or a public policy issue, there is no such thing as a "right answer". The experiences are fluid. Conditions change. Things you thought would always be there in life disappear or become unrecognizable. The same way you learn to manage your children and shepherd them through life's many difficulties, you can also learn to apply your individual experience in this world to more global issues, decide FOR YOURSELF how you feel about them and act accordingly. You didn't know anything about parenting that child when you started. But the lack of specifics didn't stop you from moving forward. That same logic applies here.

Your child, your way. Your world, your way.

Membership in a labor union, a church, or  any other group does not dictate your individual value system.  In that same vein, no political party can fully encompass any individual persons needs. So try to explore issues for yourself, break them down, and apply your own experience. And THEN vote. If you discover that voting alone is not enough, find other ways to contribute. Recognize that your individuality is an asset. Be willing to argue. Get passionate about things that are important to you. Respect issues that are important to others and ask them why they care about those issues. Then listen to the answer. Don't just sit there and think about what you are going to say next. Read. Communicate. Reason it out.

Not everyone can be a politician or a journalist. But everyone can be an activist. It's your country. Its your world. What are you doing to align your big picture experience with your individual values? Don't spend so much time worrying about the details of things that are so far reaching you cannot change them. Instead, think about how you can use your individuality to make a difference within your own sphere of influence. Politicians don't have every answer or even any answer. They simply have a forum.

Find your forum.

BB

Framers Intent

Given that this is an election year, it seems like a good time to think about the idea of context. It is easy to get caught up in the specifics of whatever issues you personally value with regard to parties or candidates, we all know what the "hot button" issues of the day are in 2012. Gas prices. Unemployment. Military spending. Abortion. In truth, these issues have been on the table my entire adult life in one form or another. The details change. But the major concerns in American life remain somewhat constant. Of course you have some new challenges. Immigration. Internet regulation. Healthcare reform. But in many ways, the core economic and value propositions in elections remain the same for most Americans.

We are told during every election cycle, that Americans "vote their pocketbooks". We are told that. Every. Single. Year. By every media source. And from a statistical perspective, that may be true. Certainly the basic notion of survival is always paramount. It's simply Darwinism. It's difficult to care about the space program when you can't afford to fill up your car. That said, it seems to me that in many ways, the two major parties are so similar in the execution of their specific policies, we have reached a point in time where it is basically irrelevant which party wins. There are hardcore Republicans who will swear on a stack of the bibles they so love to quote that Obama is a Marxist who is destroying capitalism. And there is the left, who shamelessly race bait every single public policy issue to the point that one might think that the Emancipation Proclamation had never been signed. These toxic elements of American politics provide such great political theater, that the important issues of the day never receive the full attention of the electorate.

The most bothersome aspect of this public bare knuckle boxing match we call an election cycle, is that whatever the issues of the day appear to be, they are for the most part dictated by either media outlets or party mouthpieces. We are TOLD that these are the important issues. And they are important. But what is more important is taking a few moments to ask yourself how these issues came to be issues. I mean, lets face it. Can you, as an individual, solve the debt crisis? Can you achieve peace in the Middle East? Can you make labor in America more affordable? No. And that is the underlying premise of representative government. The promise that somehow, the conglomerate is more powerful than the individual. So we elect people to execute our collective will. And by proxy, they are supposed to implement ideas that benefit the constituency. That's the idea.

So take a moment and ask yourself, do you feel represented?

I, for one, do not. My first clear memory of an election was Carter beating Ford in 1976 when I was in fourth grade. One of the major issues of the day, was oil prices. This was the first time I heard about OPEC. I remember people being frightened that we, as a nation, were going to run out of gas. People actually thought that. Then you had the issue of the Middle East. The Camp David Accords, where Carter presided over Sadat and Begin's attempt to reach some level of understanding. Women's rights were on the forefront, and I became interested in Gloria Steinem for the first time (although probably for her cool hippie hair and aviator glasses more than her politics). Military aggressiveness in Vietnam was still on everyones mind because be were just barely out of Cambodia. These were issues that were framing political elections in the late seventies/early eighties. And guess what? They are STILL framing elections three decades later. WHY?

Because the same people are still in office.

That is an oversimplification and hyperbole, of course. These issues would still, no doubt, be around in some form. They are complex. And in many ways, becoming more complex as our world view expands. But lets take just one issue. Dependance on foreign oil. Or maybe just dependence on oil in general. Why, nearly forty years after the first oil crisis, do we not have sustainable alternative energy available for mass consumption? You know what? I don't know. I really don't. I could guess that oil companies and car manufacturers have huge lobbies and billions to spend on keeping us dependent. And that might be a pretty good guess. But do I KNOW why? No. What I DO know, is that none of the elected officials who have been holding court in Washington on either side of the aisle has been able to get us off the teat. I do know that. So if I care about gas prices, if that bothers me, if I am "voting my pocketbook" as the media likes to say I do, why do I keep sending the same ineffective drones back to DC year after year?

Because my options are limited. There are no term limits in congress. And elections are so expensive that there are very few people who are even in a position to run for office. And every year, people in the mainstream say the same thing. Voting for a third party is a wasted vote.

Respectfully, people, I must disagree.

I became a Libertarian in 1993. As a young person, I had admired Reagan for many of his policies, and considered myself to be a Republican. I liked the idea of states rights and small government. But as I started out into the world after college, I noticed a disturbing reality. Republicans legislated just as much as their liberal counterparts. They simply legislated about different things. In fact, Reagan himself had championed one of the most anti-federalist movements of my young life by forcing the states to change the legal drinking age from whatever they each individually had determined, to a federally mandated age of twenty-one. He threatened to withhold federal infrastructure funding if the states didn't comply. This was not MY idea of the Republican party. And with each successive election cycle, the legislation got more and more intrusive into private life. Both sides were doing it. Government was growing larger and more unrestrained by the day.  I began investigating options. And I realized, that my viewpoint was aligned much better with the Libertarian philosophy than the modern Republican point of view. So I changed parties. And every year, some jackass has to tell me I am wasting my vote.

Really? And you don't feel like your vote for the "same shit different day" was wasted?

Twenty years later, we are still locked firmly into a two party system, and no doubt it will be this way for years to come. And that is as it should be. I would never advocate any kind of immediate, sweeping change in our government because we need stability. There are many good things that have come out of our current system. But the hallmark of American government is that we have a constitution that is both strong and flexible. The flexibility allows for incremental yet meaningful adaptations that are necessary in order to protect individuals from being overpowered by the force of the group. The reality is that government is a business and has been for generations. The original idea of a loosely constructed federation of colonies is long gone. And in its place, we now have a corporation, selling shares to fund itself, seeking to expand its reach and power in every conceivable direction both domestically and internationally. Thanks to the genius of our founding fathers, we, as individuals retain the ability to reign this behemoth in. We do not have to be TOLD by the media nor by leaders of the two major parties what we SHOULD care about. They want to dictate the agenda, and then give you the illusion of choice. When really, its just the same choice. Over. And over. And over. And over. So nothing really changes.

For my part, I have broken from the two party system. I "waste" my vote every chance I get by aligning myself with ideals that most closely match my own in an attempt to further a big picture agenda. I do this in part because I really believe that the two major parties are so similar, that whichever one furthers its own immediate cause in the near term is not that important to me. What is important to me, is to think about context. Not so much how to answer these specific overwhelming political conundrums, but to figure out why they are conundrums in the first place. I am not advocating that everyone become Libertarian. But I am advocating that everyone stop letting the system, whether its the public or private sector, frame the issues that you, as an individual, care about. And perhaps more importantly I am advocating that if you don't see a remedy within the confines of a two party system, use the freedom you have been given to add momentum to solutions outside the system.

In other words,  as I told my oldest daughter when she was choosing a college, whatever you do, don't let "The Man" keep you down.

BB

Just Do It.

One thing I greatly admire about good salespeople is that, unlike me, they are willing to put themselves out there in situations regardless of whether or not the conditions are ideal. I have intended to start this political blog for well over a year, yet haven't managed to get anything accomplished because I keep telling myself that I need some sort of perfect construct in order to present myself the "correct" way. So the other day, when I was buying shoes (natch), the salesgirl Liz asked me why I hadn't started yet, and I mumbled some sort of nonsense about getting an official website and she looked at me, incredulously, and said "Why don't you just go on Blogspot for free and then change it later? Who cares?"

Indeed. Who does care?

When I was in college, most people I knew were in liberal arts pursuing History, Psychology or maybe Economics with an eye towards some level of graduate school. Large companies like IBM and GE came to campuses routinely to recruit. People went into professions. You might become a doctor. A lawyer. An engineer. An advertising executive. The idea was that you should learn to specialize in something, thus ensuring economic prosperity in a post World War II economy built on a combination of corporate expansion mixed with entrepreneurship. Higher education was billed as a "magic bullet" of sorts. An opportunity afforded my generation by our parents who, through much sacrifice, made it possible for us to have professional stability. Steelworkers and farmers who had broken their bodies in physically demanding and often lousy paying jobs, took on second jobs and debt to enable their children to have access to professions that would allow them to use their minds long after their bodies were worn out. This was, simply put, progress. The American dream. Sacrifice yielding stability. This was the gift my generation received.

Now twenty or so years later, it is my oldest daughters turn to go to college. The world she is entering is far different from the world laid at my feet when I was eighteen. The Cold War is over. We live in a world more global in scope than most of us could have ever imagined. Professions like medicine and law are not the idyllic paths to stability and prosperity that we once believed them to be. The government, not large private corporations, is the largest employer of Americans. Companies that were once thought too big to fail and provided thousands of jobs each year to college graduates are now insolvent, non-existent or outsourced. And higher education has itself become a business so large in scope that it has lost much of it's intended purpose. 

What to do...

The financial meltdown and housing crisis that this country has experienced in the last decade has been nothing if not thought provoking. It is a clear sign that the financial models, government controls and economic ideals that our parents generation had put in place are evolving. Due to the loss of standard of living that so many people have experienced, it is easy to say that this transition is a failure. And to some degree, it is. But when taken in a macro perspective, it becomes clear that we are, in fact on the precipice of something that could be even greater. 

The opportunity to think as individuals. 

Companies like Apple, Google and Facebook are examples of forward thinking financial modeling. The implosion of companies like Merrill Lynch and General Motors indicates that their style of doing business is no longer feasible in a global economy. This is a difficult thing to accept. But it is a reality. The idea that large companies are always going to be there to provide jobs is now archaic. And while this may be stressful to my generation, trying to provide for their children while simultaneously staring down the barrel of aging baby-boomer parents many of whom have dwindling pensions and long life expectancies; it is an opportunity for our children. The key is to not allow yourself to get stuck in an outdated mode of thinking.

To wit. How much money should the average high school graduate be willing to spend to get a four-year degree? What will this degree yield? No one knows. On it's face, it would appear, given current economic conditions, that a degree in engineering or computers would be a good bet. But ask yourself, isn't that what we thought twenty years ago about a legal or medical degree? Not to say that those degrees have no value. They do. And the world will still need doctors and lawyers. But at what cost? What percentage of your adult life do you intend to delegate to you or your parents paying off your education? It's a real dilemma for today's youth. So I am telling my daughter, what I believe to be true: 

You must learn to sell. 

Sell widgets. Sell clothing. Sell cars. Sell yourself. Sell your ideas. Whatever it takes. One basic concept that holds true in America is that if you can gain the confidence to sell, you will probably always have a job. It might be at McDonald's. It might be at Goldman Sachs. Or it might be acting in a movie. But whatever you are doing, you have to sell it. And you have to realize that you are never too good for any job. Whatever needs to be done, you must do it. You must have the confidence to take a job you feel overqualified for until something better comes along. And if it never comes along, you must use your free time to think about how to make it come along. If you want to get a PhD in Classics and English Literature, I support that. But you are going to have to sell something in order to make that work in our economy. Sell a book. Sell your expertise. Whatever. And if English Literature doesn't pay, you are going to have to use your sales skills elsewhere to support yourself and write your book on the side. I support the idea of going to an institution to become educated. But I do NOT support institutional thinking. College is a business. They are no more enlightened in their approach than any other corporate dinosaur. So get your degree. Have some fun. But don't fall into the trap of believing that ANY institution has the answer. Try to harness this current breakdown in the economy in a creative way by thinking of new approaches. This is not a difficult time to be young. It is an exciting time. Because you are at the beginning of a new dynamic. Embrace the chaos and look for opportunities in the gaps being created by the decimation of old ideas. You can publish your OWN book online now. The corporate stranglehold on creative ideas is waning. And that might be bad news for Wall Street, but it's very good news for a young aspiring author. 

So today, I start this blog, in my own attempt to sell. Because a salesperson lent me her enthusiasm and confidence.

Thanks, Liz.

BB