Padd Solutions

Converted by Falcon Hive

Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts

The Death of Danton

Posted by moses @ 17:31 • , , , , • 0 comments


Every year on Armistice Day and V-Day Europe remembers the dangers of nationalism—at least one would hope. In contrast, I don't think too many people in Asia are attuned to it. Maybe not enough of us have died tragically in its name?

Certainly, between violent squabbles about the ruins of a temple and lengthy periods of compulsory military service, a cacophony of nationalist sentiments permeates Southeast Asia. And few seem to stop and ask: Why does it matter?

Indeed, why? I'm sure we've all heard John F. Kennedy's famous line, "Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for the country". I think that should be reformulated, and not as a statement but as a question: What does your country even mean to you?

In truth, for many people, I can think of very little. Sure, your country gives you a sense of identity as the place you were born in, where you perhaps live and have the right to be. But you pay your taxes, don't you? As productive or at least honest members of society, you are paying your dues to the community as a member. You are participating in the community.

Yes, everyone stands to lose if the country is weak and vulnerable, but up to what point are concerns about security still reasonable? When does it start to resemble paranoia?

The leaders know that simple pragmatism alone wouldn't commit people to readily pledge their service to the country, at least not to the extent that they're hoping for. That's why they come up with nationalistic propaganda. Their hope is that some sort of love for and sense of responsibility to the country would be instilled in you. The blinder you are as a follower the better. When they need martyrs, they know where to look.

So why do we play along? What is it that the country gives us in exchange? We know why the politicians hold office and why the government is in power. They give their service in exchange for power and position. I can perhaps understand the American sentiment that the country is the defender of their liberties. But especially in places like Singapore, where you're always simply asked to go the extra mile for the 'greater good', so that the country can be competitive, what's in it for you?

Do you think the country takes care of you? In the age of globalisation, where the welfare state is deemed inefficient, the country can no longer make the promises it used to make. Will you have jobs? Will you be able to earn a decent living? Will you have enough funds to retire comfortably? The paradigm of the neo-liberal state gives no clear answers to such questions. You are essentially on your own. The role of the state is to leave you free to do what you want, provided you have the means to do it. Batteries not included, of course.

Even then, in some countries you're not actually free to do a great number of relatively harmless things, like buying chewing gum.

And so, as I've said some time ago, is there any real meaning to nationalism today? How is it that they are asking you to love something selflessly in a world of self-love? If you love yourself, you will find the means to live. That is the living ethic of today. Can loving your country provide an alternative?

It's funny that years ago I had a pragmatic attitude towards nationalism, seeing it as necessarily existent and even necessary. Young minds are impressionable, I suppose. And that's when it's most dangerous. If the leaders want to fight a great war, they need the young to be on board.

A mutinous army results in a dead Tsar. Do we want to give him the power with which he could kill us instead?


Flagpins and apple pie

Posted by moses @ 13:31 • , , , , , , • 0 comments


If you've been following world news, you must have learned about the 'controversy' surrounding Barack Obama's citizenship. Simply put, some people contend that he's Kenyan. Fortunately, Obama's official birth certificate has been produced and verified. Unfortunately, some of these people are demanding to see the original long-form certificate, which may or may not exist today, and that he produce various other records that he is not obliged to produce. Worse, someone found his purported Kenyan birth certificate.

If your memory of American politics extends further back to the presidential elections, you'd remember that Obama was also accused of being an Arab and of being a "Muslin".

So who or what is Obama, really? Let's settle this issue for ourselves by looking at his real ultimate birth certificate:


Convinced?

This is America, the famous "melting pot" of the world. And the issue of the president's identity causes such an unnecessary stir, despite proofs that he is indeed American. Perhaps he's not American enough, unless he's white?

Someone asked me a few days ago if I feel a greater identification with my country when I'm overseas. Yes, I do. It's the only thing that identifies me when people ask me where I'm from. Yeah, I wasn't born here and I spent 10 years growing up in another country. I got my citizenship only when I was 21. And, yes, it seems that I have plenty of complaints about Singapore. Heck, I might even want to live elsewhere.

But this is my country. Is there any use in pretending otherwise?

So what exactly is national identity, as many people are looking out for? How do you measure 'Britishness' or 'Frenchness? This seems to be a very relevant question in Europe, where various groups of immigrants have real problems integrating; or perhaps it is the various societies that have problems accommodating the immigrants.

Perhaps the question is, in an age of globalisation, do nation states still hold the same level of significance as before? I wrote some time ago that patriotism should be about solidarity with your countrymen and not about loyalty to the state. But why stop at your countrymen? Is it because of a shared history? Surely things that happened in the country before you were born don't affect your identity directly. Rather, their legacy forms part of the country's culture. Is it then a question of cultural identity?

This is where globalisation complicates things, and where size also matters. The world is both too small and too big. Today, we readily absorb elements of other cultures that the media exposes us to. At the same time, the particularities of the sub-national regions that we come from continue to differentiate us from fellow citizens from another region. Can we pin down what makes us identify ourselves as citizens of a country?

Does essence precede existence? Are people from a country because they share a common identity, or do people share a common identity because they are from a country?

Is it possible for a Singaporean to not be Singaporean enough?

I think many people's gut instincts would be to say "yes". Otherwise, why do they regularly try to whip up some sort of esprit de corps, or why do they disapprove of those who don't have it? Labels like "unpatriotic" and even "ungrateful" testify to some sort of assumption that you have to qualify yourself as a true citizen.

And why do people regularly assume that to be Singaporean you have to be of a similar mind in some things? Do practices, perhaps, confer identity?

What I know is that it suffices that I am from this country. When people ask me where I'm from, I tell them. No embellishments are necessary, and I don't feel obligated to paint my country in a good light. I am Singaporean because I live or lived in Singapore for a good part of my life and I carry a Singapore passport. Is that not enough?

Before the idea of the nation state was born, people were parochial. They identified themselves with the little regions that they lived in. The peculiar practices of a region might have differentiated its people from those who were from another region, but I doubt a lot of them thought much about how they must cultivate regional identities. People belonged to a region simply because they lived there. In these times, I think we should be moving back towards such a picture.

But perhaps we still can't let go of the early 20th century.

Socialism? Well, the joke's on you.

Posted by moses @ 12:00 • , , , , , • 0 comments


The mania about socialism has gripped America as the Obama administration reveals its true colours – mostly red, of course. A witty poster that has surfaced lately made a brilliant connection:


The Joker and socialism. Who would've thought of that? And Batman is Republican, of course. Heck, he used some crazy tracking device that looked it like it came straight out of the Department of Homeland Security. Commie Joker and holy Repub Batman!

With every Joe Plumber screaming socialism whenever the Obama administration tries to expand federal regulatory powers, I decided to write a piece about socialism and what I think are socialist and what I think are not. Let me begin with an interesting cartoon:

That cartoon is very good because it encapsulates some of the fundamentals of Marxist ideas, which no doubt serve as the spring board for, if not the foundation of, socialism. So keeping it in mind, I shall offer my take on what socialism is about. It is broadly based on my own study of Marx's Capital, which is a key text in Marxist thought.


Marxism is a critique of political economy, and it is a radical one because it demonstrates ad hominem, or the characteristic of being directed towards the human subject. In Marx's words:

Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.

Marx argued that the world of political economy is a topsy-turvy world, where economic categories and laws, which are created by man, have enslaved man and replaced him as the foci of socio-economic activity. And instead of the actual use that we have for the things we produce (i.e. focusing on our needs), we are much more concerned by how much they are valued relative to other things (i.e. focusing on the market and its operations).

This is commodification of things. Next comes the commodification of labour. Labour has a use – to produce commodities. It is bought and sold in the labour market. The value by which it goes (the wage) is not the same as the use value that the capitalist who buys it gets. The commodities that a worker produces are usually worth more in the market than the wage that the worker earns for his efforts. This creates surplus value or profit, which the capitalist enjoys.

Now, there are many reasons why this happens, and they are well covered by economics. But I contend that the Marxist critique still holds great truth. We are very focused on the intricate workings of the market, on the value of things when we exchange them, and we often lose sight of the thing behind it all – the man, who has needs, whose labour creates the commodities that are sold on the market. The subject without who nothing at all would matter because we cease to exist, since we are the subject ourselves or, failing that, because without them all economic activity would never have begun.

As I see it, a major contention is then on whether the capitalist plays a necessary role in economic activity. But even if we disagree on that issue, I think there is enough reason to pay attention to the rights of the average worker. What is the human world about but human beings? And the vast majority of human beings are not really capitalists – they still have to sell their labour to earn their wages for a living. And in this huge group of people we must include those who do not even earn wages but who, nevertheless, play important roles in human society: mothers/fathers, stay-home wives/husbands, unpaid social workers, students and children not yet in the workforce, etc.

Another big question is whether capitalism gives more than it takes. No doubt the world has gotten wealthier because of capitalism, despite the economic storms. But that is only to speak of the aggregate amount of wealth. Many people pay a heavy price each time the economy takes a hit due to man-made risks that they didn't personally take or have any control over. I think one of the things capitalism is about is rewarding risk-taking in the name of growth and development. But that should be balanced by the price that common people pay when things go awry. If risks must be taken, there must be something adequate for people to fall back on. Don't forget the common man.

I think that is the fundamental principle of socialism – the return to man. And this is why things such as universal healthcare, free or affordable education and minimum wage laws are pretty solidly socialist. Anything that violates or ignores this principle can hardly be called socialist, and things that are not necessarily based on this principle are not necessarily socialist. As such,
  • Regulation is not necessarily socialist
And, by extension, neither is big government. Plenty of Marxists are libertarian in that they see government and bureaucracy as instruments for the entrenchment of the wealthy minority. They believe in the socialist principle like their statist cousins, but they are very wary of vast and powerful governing apparatuses that can be appropriated by certain interests, and which present a strong resistance to social change from the ground up.

Besides, regulation is also significantly present in regular capitalism, and especially in non-socialist systems that emphasize control, such as Fascism.
  • Taxes are not necessarily socialist.
People all over the world pay taxes no matter what sort of system they live under, provided there is a functioning state and government.
  • High tax rates are not necessarily socialist.
Any system of social organisation can introduce high tax rates or many forms of taxes. For example, popular discontent over excessive taxation was one of the problems feudalistic monarchies had.
  • Labour unions are not necessarily socialist.
This might be more controversial. Labour unions are a very socialist idea, yes, but they can and have been hijacked by vested interests. The funniest ones are those whose leaders are appointed by the businesses whose interests they are supposed to keep in check for the benefit of the workers.
  • Obama is not socialist.
His focus is on Hope and Change, but, from the point of view of socialism, it's not very clear who has the hope or what change is in order. Most socialists would probably not count him as one of them.

I'm sure there are many more things that can be added, but this short list will have to do for this short write up. I hope, however, that I have provided a tool with which one can assess whether a policy could be regarded as socialist.

True, false or free?

Posted by moses @ 06:33 • , , , , , , , , , , • 0 comments


Last week I wrote about what freedom means. But it might raise some questions in some people's minds. What spurs me to confidently state that freedom doesn't really apply to certain opinions? I brought up the fact that freedoms clash, and that some precede others. Thus, the freedom of speech should not be emphasized over (among others) the right to live and to pursue happiness.

Nevertheless, let's dig around a bit more. Or, rather, let's turn our eyes to the elephant in the room: Truth – as opposed to falsity or ignorance.

In all the discourse about the freedom and the relativism of opinion, we might forget that the elephant sits quietly on one side. Others pointedly ignore it. But it's there. Maybe one needs a shock before one remembers its presence. Maybe some news that would set our alarm bells off, for example – like the recent proposals being considered by the Texas Board of Education.

The conservative-dominated Board appointed six reviewers to propose changes to make to the history curriculum. Two of the three reviewers appointed by conservative board members run conservative Christian organisations, while the three appointed by the moderates and liberals are all professors of history or education at Texas universities.

Here are some recommendations that the conservative reviewers made:


Replace Thurgood Marshall with Harriet Tubman or Sam Houston.


In first grade, students are expected to study the contributions of Americans who have influenced the course of history. Rev. Peter Marshall, a reviewer, calls Thurgood Marshall – who as a lawyer argued Brown v. Board of Education and later became the first black justice on the U.S. Supreme Court – a weak example."

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was the case where segregated schools were ruled unconstitutional in the United States.


Delete César Chávez from a list of figures who modeled active participation in the democratic process.


Two reviewers objected to citing Mr. Chávez, who led a strike and boycott to improve working conditions for immigrant farmhands, as an example of citizenship for fifth-graders. "He's hardly the kind of role model that ought to be held up to our children as someone worthy of emulation," Rev. Marshall wrote."

César Chávez was a Mexican American labour leader and civil rights activist who made contributions to the recognition of workers' rights in the United States.


Replace references to America's 'democratic' values with 'republican' values


Reviewer David Barton suggests swapping out 'republican' for 'democratic' in teaching materials. As he explains: "We don't pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands."

Can you see where these recommendations are going?

Now, the question that begs asking is what were these religious leaders doing making official recommendations on school curriculum in the first place? Why were actual educators and experts in the field sharing the table with them? We can infer a sad answer from the examples above, especially the third.

And this, by the way, is the Board that has approved the teaching of creationist critiques of evolution in schools.

Thus, the elephant is forgotten amidst all the politicking. And Thio Li Ann's case is another example. Let's pick just one issue amongst the many it has:


Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder; there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with this. Just this year, two high profile US activists left the homosexual lifestyle, the publisher of Venus, a lesbian magazine, and an editor of Young Gay America. Their stories are available on the net. An article by an ex-gay in the New Statesmen this July identified the roots of his emotional hurts, like a distant father, overbearing mother and sexual abuse by a family friend; after working through his pain, his unwanted same-sex attractions left. While difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those wanting to fulfill their heterosexual potential. There is hope.


- Thio Li Ann

Compare that to the American Psychological Association's (among others) findings:


Sexual orientation has proved to be generally impervious to interventions intended to change it... No scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe. Moreover, because homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, national mental health organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Therefore, all major national mental health organizations have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. The statement of the American Psychiatric Association cautions that “[t]he potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior."

And the American Psychiatric Association's findings:


APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder... APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.

Who do you trust, scientists and experts or conservative leaders with religious agendas and maybe some sinners to burn?

And, therefore, this is another compelling reason why freedom of speech is quite beside the point here. We want to argue truth, not falsity. We can talk about the freedom to hold and express an opinion all day, but if the opinion is utterly false, then nothing will be accomplished at all. And there might be a heavy price to pay too.

So, are we going to acknowledge the elephant in the room?

Well, I think I know what the Republicans might have done with theirs.