Oil Stained Hands

above: the author, Wes Bishop

nb: If you enjoy this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

"Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood

Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather

The multitudinous seas incarnadine,

Making the green one red."

- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 2.2

Wes Bishop condemns BP for the catastrophic oil spill off the US east coast, and calls for them to be held to account. But more than this, he argues that all Americans must now also take responsibility by demanding from their politicians proper regulation of the sector.

During the final year that George W. Bush was in office, Americans all felt the squeeze at the pump as oil prices skyrocketed. Yet, as the 2008 election ended and new political leaders readied themselves for the oath of office, Americans witnessed the downward spiral of gas prices. Breathing a collective sigh of relief, many began to feel comfortable in thinking that the country had paid its final price to out of control oil companies.

Then 2010 arrived.

Although the world wide recession is still keeping gas prices moderately low, Americans and people all over the world will soon feel the crippling crush the oil companies can unleash. Unfortunately, this time the charge will not be four dollars a gallon, but instead billions in cleanup, billions in lost revenue for other industries, and the incalculable cost of destroying our aquatic and costal habitats.

I speak of nothing other than the 2010 BP Oil Spill.

By now the storyline that has emerged is known by anyone with cable television. In late April an explosion occurred on an oil rig that had ties to BP, Transocean, and Halliburton. Eleven workers were killed, and the initially optimistic reports peddled by the companies in question were found to be lies.

Instead of five thousand barrels it has been discovered that for nearly two months over twelve thousand barrels a day have been pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.

The environmental and economic consequences of this disaster, that still has not been resolved, will take years to repair. So enormous are the ramifications of this disaster that commentators are at a loss to describe to the public exactly what is occurring.

However, one thing that is crystal is the problems that led to the disaster occurring in the first place. So far much of the criticism that has been brought forward against the companies has been dismissed as playing a guilt game. This line of thinking holds that it is more important to solve the problem then it is to point fingers. Although this is true the public should not be fooled into letting the guilty off the line. There is no argument that hind sight is twenty/twenty, nor that everyone is perfect and that mistakes will never occur. But it is insane to openly know what caused this disaster and do nothing about it.

This essay will look at the true problems that caused the spill of 2010. Yet, before people start easing themselves into preparation of an article that will run circles around a big corporation, know that the real problems that caused the spill did not come from BP. It did not come from any corporation. It did not come from any government. Instead, the problems that led to the spill came from the everyday citizen of the United States.

Yes, the government deregulated the oil industry.

Yes, BP cut safety measures to make a profit.

Yes, the government, including President Obama, only months before had been pushing for more off shore drilling instead of making the necessary choices to move forward with energy.

These are all true, but they all exist because people tolerate them.

The government deregulated the oil industry, not only because of money from special interest, but also because people believe that it is better for a company to regulate itself then it is for an objective third party. BP cut safety measures to make a profit, but Americans have shown themselves to be more interested in cheap products then high environmental standards. The government is still dragging its feet to fix the energy crisis we are all barreling towards, but many Americans want to ignore everything that is being said by scientist in favor of what fairy tale is being spun by paid liars.

All of these things point to the conclusion that our problems are not being caused by corrupt companies, or corrupt governments. Instead this suggests that our problems are coming from a crisis of philosophy that is blinding us to the obvious.

Well into the middle of the crisis Rand Paul, a candidate for the office of Senator, told cameras that the government had no business interfering with this crisis. He even went so far as to say that it was un-American of President Obama to hold the companies responsible.

Many have defended this position as a respectable stance of libertarianism. Somehow this philosophy has convinced people that BP really does have the right to do as it wants. That it is somehow BP’s oil, not the peoples, and therefore everyone should shut up and allow the free market to work.

Yet, the oil polluting the Gulf of Mexico, and soon the Atlantic Ocean, does not belong to BP. It communally belongs to the people of the United States. Granted, if certain conservative elements in the United States had their way the oil would belong to private industry, but as of now natural resources still belong to every person of a nation. When individuals make the case that we do not have the right to regulate how a private company behaves with natural resources they are sorely mistaken. We have every right to decide how, when, and where a company extracts those materials.

BP pays the United States government to go in and retrieve oil, with the understanding that it is going to be able to sell that resource for a profit.

However the question begs to be asked, why should the American citizen need to pay for something they own?

The answer given by many is that the American citizen has to pay BP because BP is the one that refines the oil. BP is the one who paid for the permit. And BP is the one that takes a risk on retrieving the oil. Many of these answers are interesting for the assumptions they make. Overhanging all of them is the Chicago School of Economics idea that private industry is the best equipped to handle any type of service, and that if government were involved it would simply interfere, and be inadequate.

Yes, one sees the logic to this statement. If the government were to retrieve the oil then it might engage in risky practices and cause a monumental oil spill that would wreck havoc on local and national economies and environments.

Also, BP is not engaging in any risk. By paying off legislators, who then lower the level of money the company has to contribute to fix a spill, companies and law makers have made it much more attractive to cut regulations, engage in risk, and then write off failure on the tax payer.

Enraged? According to many “libertarians” you have no right to be. The free market will work, they say, to re-establish balance. However, what they are not saying is that the free market is working to balance budget books, not common welfare or the greater good.

In the Banking Crisis of 2008 private industry failed as well, and needed the government to interfere to fix their mistakes.

This time the private industry does not necessarily need government interference to survive. What government interference is needed for is to ensure that the spill is contained and that people, guilty of nothing, do not become financially ruined for another’s actions.

Unlike the financial industry oil companies will never have to worry about being swept aside, because everyone needs the product they sell. What is so darkly amusing is that the oil companies own this monopoly because we give them the access to the natural resources, they make a profit, and then use that profit to buy off our politicians to ensure that only favorable regulations are passed, that the monopoly continues, and that we are held captive by their price games.

This time it was an oil spill in the Gulf, next time it could be, if certain forces have their way, a nuclear meltdown in the heartland of America, or some other horror brought on by out of check greed.

Unchecked companies and capitalism will not save America, nor will it move it into a secure future. Humans will perpetually suffer the same fates as long as they repeat the same follies. We have repeatedly seen what occurs when powerful corporations are permitted to cut corners. We have repeatedly seen what happens when the government and big companies become too close. Time and again this lesson has been slapped in the face of everyone, and time and again it has been ignored. Like children with a lit stove we, for some reason, have not learned the lesson of getting burned. And like children we continue to cry when we inflict pain on ourselves by not being more careful. We scorn those who warn us, and we play with fire.

Make no mistake, I am all for prescribing blame on BP but like the Scottish Queen of Shakespearian lore, we all have blood (or in this case) oil stained hands. We can, like the dramatic character, attempt to scrub ourselves clean, but we are quickly running out of pure water to do so. Only by re-examining our philosophies will we ensure true regulation, and prevention of such disasters.

Howard Zinn remembered

above: Howard Zinn - Standing up for Human Rights

a Eulogy by Wes Bishop

On the evening of January 27, 2010 President Barack Obama was nearing the end of his first State of the Union Address.

Before a joint session of Congress, before the leaders of the military, his cabinet, and the nine Supreme Court Justices, Obama addressed the people of the country by talking in front of its most powerful individuals.

Meanwhile, in California an aged scholar and historian was drawing his last breath.

The man was Howard Zinn.

It is strangely poetic that Zinn would pass away on the night when all the power brokers of the country were meeting in a single room. Throughout his long life he had been a direct challenge to the establishment, arguing that true democracy did not occur in the halls of power but instead in the streets and homes of everyday citizens.

He popularized this idea, while gaining national fame and almost pop culture status, when he authored the best seller A People’s History of the United States.

The People’s History, when first published in 1980, was a breath of fresh air for professional historians and the general public alike. It drew both criticism and praise for re-examining such topics as the genocide against Native Americans, the labor movement, women’s rights, slavery, imperialism, and the various anti-war movements.

Although the People’s History is Zinn’ best known work it was in fact one piece of scholarship that fell in between a life of academics and activism.

Born on August 24, 1922 in Brooklyn, to Jewish immigrants, the young Zinn came into a world highly divided by class. Class that was solely based on economics. Zinn would later report that his father, who worked as a waiter, was one of the hardest working men he knew, yet for all of his hard work he was largely unable to move forward in society. It would be one of the first lessons that Zinn would experience in regards to American capitalism and do much to dispel the idea that people could make it rich if they only worked hard enough. Such sentiment, Zinn would later criticize, was one of the foundations for people having animosity for the poor and struggling middle class, because with that ideology came the notion that if you were poor and powerless you were doing something wrong.

This early establishment of a love for the underdog, and a reverence for liberty and freedom, carried Zinn into World War Two as a bombardier. Eager to fight fascism and rid the world of bigoted empires he was astonished to witness racism with his fellow soldiers. In one incident Zinn reported that he came down on a fellow Caucasian soldier that was angry over an African-American eating at the same table. Zinn was outraged at the soldiers behavior asking the servicemen what exactly America was fighting in the war against Hitler.

This anger over bigotry would soon be coupled with outrage for Zinn has he witnessed the whole sale bombing of European towns, acts of war that claimed many an innocent European civilian. Revisiting some of these cites years after the war Zinn learned that towards the end of the conflict the military had chosen a route of fighting that disregarded human life, benefited military testing, and made little distinction between enemy combatants and innocent bystanders.

Returning to the states after the war Zinn took all of his medals that he had received, placed them in an envelope, and wrote across its surface these simple words- “Never Again.” For the rest of his life Zinn would advocate and practice the liberal ideal of pacifism.

And so began a long career of academia. In one of his first professorships Zinn offered advice and helped foster the spirit of the civil rights movement on the college campus. For his endeavour he was fired. To add insult to injury the college that fired him was Spellman College, an institute of higher learning that was an African-American girl’s college. It is bizarre that such a thing could occur but as Zinn repeatedly made clear throughout his life injustice and apathy to societal ills can be committed by any segment of the population.

Like many that had come before him he viewed his ascent in society not as a justification for solely bettering himself and his economic standing. Instead he understood that those in a position such as his have a duty to serve, educate, and assist all rungs of society.

As a young educator in the social sciences, the lessons and material Zinn made available over his long life are veins of work that will continue to benefit classes of students long after all those who knew him are gone.

We can view Zinn, and his ideas, as many a “patriot” have. That is to say with a knee-jerk reaction that confirms the suspicions of deeply embedded nationalism. Or we can take Zinn’s work, learn the many lessons from it that are available, and work to craft a more perfect union.

As Zinn said once, “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.” Life is too precious, democracy to dear, to treat government policy and human existence as flippantly as a move on a strategic board game.

Democracy is rule of the people. We should never forget that in democratic countries the policies of the powerful should always work to benefit the populace and not institutions, ideologies, or governments. It is at both times a simple and profound position to espouse, and it is one that Howard Zinn faithfully proselytized to all those who would listen. For this he will be missed, and always remembered.

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Human tragedy as ‘Divine Will’? – Wes Bishop refutes right-wing Evangelist Patrick Robertson

above: the body of a child in Haiti - is this God's will?

 Preface: The blog owner is a Christian himself – as well as a socialist and liberal – and would just like to preface this article by insisting that not all Christians seek to rationalize the suffering of innocents on account of ‘divine will’. The crucifixion of Christ was itself an injustice – and those who seek to ‘blame the victim’ should reflect upon such Christian dictums: “do unto others as you would have done to yourself”; “as you do unto the least of these, you do unto me”; and “as you judge so too shall you be judged”. In Christianity and Judaism the example of Job is also illustrative of the point that people should not rush in to judge others when the full context they do not understand.

Tristan

Human tragedy as 'Divine Will'?

The Italian thinker and writer Ignazio Silone once said, “An earthquake achieves what the law promises, but does not in practice maintain-the equality of all men.” This month the world, and especially the people of Haiti, were reminded of how true that statement is. The stories, footage, and pictures that emerged from the rubble were at both times heartbreaking and a clear reminder of the destructive force the planet can unleash.

The news that once again Haiti had been dealt a heavy blow was especially heartbreaking because of the known suffering that the small island nation has been forced to endure over the centuries. Yet, as the dust settled and the aftershocks subsided, many in the international community came forth to try and rally support for the people of Haiti. This call to arms, led by the Red Cross and the White House came from a well established knowledge that the ills that befall a nation and a people are of two kinds, random events (earthquakes, hurricanes, floods) and man-made disasters (war, poverty, genocide).

However, there was another voice that emerged after the tragedy of the 2010 Haitian earthquake, a voice that needed to prescribe the event to a higher being.

On January 13th the Reverend Patrick Robertson said the following on his evangelical show The 700 Club, “Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French ... and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French.’ True story. And the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’ Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another.”

Robertson’s comments were quickly denounced by many as shockingly unsympathetic to the people of Haiti, and a clear case of blaming the victim for an uncontrollable disaster. Many in the media threw up their hands and shook their heads in disgust, unable to understand how someone could even hold such a thought.

What the controversial televangelist was referring to was the 1791 slave rebellion that occurred on the island of Haiti to overthrow the French colony, and the white slave masters that held the islands kidnapped African population in bondage. According to Robertson, and many other Christian thinkers, the islands slave population made a deal with the archangel Lucifer so as to have assistance in deposing their French masters. Robertson’s comments can best be understood if one accepts the fact that Robertson knows nothing of Haitian history, pluralistic theology, or the basic idea that a nation’s ills come about because of random events, and man-made disasters. Instead, Robertson is much more in tune with the playwright Euripides who said, “A God caused this fate, a God created this disaster.”

Although the Baptist evangelical would most likely disapprove of being compared to an ancient Greek pagan, the similarity in sentiment is striking. In both cases the thought that some vengeful God or an embittered angel is the source of humanities woes goes back to the idea that much of what befalls humanity is not only justified but largely out of the hands of the people on earth.

This mindset, once adopted by the masses, gives religious leaders a huge advantage over rational thought because it allows religious institutions to keep countless people hostage by the fear that they can never risk angering a supernatural creature, and that only through a certain religion will people be able to alleviate the suffering they currently face.

One sees this time and again with religion. The claim is made that all of suffering is somehow mans fault and that if one were to simply accept a God then it would not be so bad. What this does is deeply troubling. It sets up a culture of blaming the victim, slowing human progress, and eventually harming the beauty of faith.

For example let us take the case of Haiti. Anyone who spends even an iota of time paging through the history of the nation knows that the forces of imperialism, poverty, and military despotism are the causes of its ills. Even though the earthquake was beyond anyone’s control, the damage and loss of life could have been reduced. This could have occurred if Haiti had had access to a government that could afford and enforce stricter and safer construction practices for their buildings. As it has been made widely known in the media, a similar quake of nearly equal magnitude hit California a number of years ago resulting in only sixty people losing their lives. Compare this to the tens of thousands that have been killed in Haiti, and it becomes apparent that when governments, either because of poverty or negligence, cannot offer basic services to their people disaster is merely an incident removed.

Accompany this basic thought with the true history of Haiti and Robertson’s comments are not only absurd but a dangerous lesson in how many religious leaders recruit new followers. As it has been mentioned above Haiti was at one time a nation of African slaves. The native population had been wiped out by the white settlers and the plantation owners, in need of cheap labor, turned to exporting humans from Africa to work the various farms of Haiti. Haiti at the time was a highly profitable colony producing much of the sugar that the French Empire used and sold. The white slave owners worked the African slaves so much that mortality rates were so high that very few second generation African-Haitians ever entered the population. Instead, the French colonial plantation owners turned to continuous arrivals of Africans to fill the workforce. This led to a constant renewal of African beliefs and customs, one of which was Voodou. This commonality became a rallying point for many of the slaves. On August 14th 1791 this rallying point occurred with a Voodou ceremony being held at Bois Caiman. While there it was reported that the African slaves prayed to differing deities, known as Loa or Lwa, to help in overthrowing the white slave owners. A pig was then sacrificed and the whole ceremony served as an energizing catalyst to begin the revolution.

Obviously there was no Loa that helped in overthrowing the French, just as there was no Satan. Instead what occurred was much like what happened when the United States declared independence from Britain by meeting in Philadelphia. Finally the Haitians were able to meet, organize, find common ground, and launch a movement. There was no magic in the parchment of the Declaration, nor were there any sprits floating around Independence Hall, instead what the Congress was able to do was nearly exact to what the Africans did, and that is find common ground to start a political movement.

Yet, the Founding Fathers of the United States had one huge advantage over the people of Haiti, and that is they were educated, perceived as somewhat legitimate in Caucasian controlled Europe, and possessing of the knowledge in how to organize a government.

The fact that the soon to be leaders of Haiti were able to go as far as they did is quite impressive. But the lack of infrastructure coupled with the devastating economic penalties France was able to levy, damaged Haiti so much from the outset that it has never really been able to recover.

The sooner nations begin to become aware of this history, and ignore the ignorance of men like Robertson, the sooner the much needed debate on successful foreign aid can be made.

Earlier this month a very important story was overlooked, first for news that Sarah Palin was joining the cast at FOX News, then because of the release of a tabloid book on the 2008 Presidential campaign, followed by a “scandal” by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when he said a racially insensitive remark in private, and then finally the earthquake in Haiti.

This important story was that a little old woman in Europe died. She was nearly a century old. She never held political office, never led an army into war, and never directed the world on how to pray or believe in God. Instead, she saved a diary for a thirteen year old girl. The diary would eventually be known as The Diary of Anne Frank and the woman was Miep Gies. Through her act of heroics, she and other Christians during World War Two hid Jews from the persecution of the Nazis. She was an extraordinary ordinary person, and one that deserved a hell of a lot more attention than she did when she passed away. The reason I bring her up now is because she said something once that still rings with profound truth, and that is that you do not need to be an extraordinary person to do good. You do not need to lead armies, congregations, or countries to help others. You need only to have a working moral compass, an idea of what is going on in the world, and a desire to help others in order to produce significant change.

One need not look to Gods and Devils, like Robertson and Euripides, to explain humanities troubles. One need not pray to Loas and Angels for extraordinary strength and guidance. One need simply remember the words of Silone and Gies, that in short we are all equal and all struggling together, and that any of us can help make the world a better place.

Wes Bishop

Kettering, Ohio

As this article is being put to bed, news continues to be heard that the people of Haiti are still in desperate need of relief. This is being further compounded with the knowledge that another earthquake hit Haiti just a few days after the devastating first, making it all the more important to donate whatever one can. In these economic times it is understandable that not all can give as much as they would like, but please be on the lookout for ways to help. Thank you.

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.
see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

A Laborious Effort - by Wes Bishop

In 1939, amidst a flurry of controversy one of the greatest American novels hit the book stands to a population divided over the message that the book sought to explore. The book was The Grapes of Wrath, written by the American literary master John Steinbeck.

Within the book Steinbeck discussed many issues, one of which was the labor movement in the United States. For this exploration, and his other thoughts, Steinbeck created a backlash within the conservative community that resented the fact that an author would dare to explore the darker side of American life. So infuriated where many that a plot developed to arrest Steinbeck and falsely charge him with raping an underage girl. Fortunately for Steinbeck the plot was foiled but the resentment none the less continued to boil.

Such an occurrence is unfortunately common in the States where patriotism is hijacked by the nationalistic to become a state where only certain values are championed and where problems that are inconvenient are white washed and ignored. Such is the case with the labor movement in the United States.

As Steinbeck shows in his novel the right for the worker to organize and work for better conditions in the work place is a fundamental and natural state for workers to gravitate towards. In the book Steinbeck illustrates this by having his protagonist family, the Joads, go to work on a farm picking fruit. Upon arriving they discover that the wages, although not stupendous, are acceptable. It is only later that they find out that they are “strikebreakers”, workers that have been shipped in to force the old workers who are demanding better wages to give up their strike for better wages and working conditions.

In the actions that follow Tom Joad (one of the main characters) tells Preacher Jim Casey (another main character) that the strikebreakers will not join the strike because the wages they are currently receiving are “pretty good.” Jim Casey tries to reason with Tom that the only reason they are getting good wages is because the strike is forcing the hands of the bigger companies. Tom says that this may be so but to most workers it will not matter, all they will care is that they are receiving good wages for the time. Before the conversation can go much further company thugs show up and kill Preacher Jim Casey. This effectively ends the strike and the very next day the wages of the strikebreakers are reduced.

This scenario is not a farfetched science fiction plot. Instead it is a very plausible situation and it is because of its stark realism that many were angered by its being vocalized, because as it is mentioned above there is a strong tendency in the United States to overlook the blatantly unjust, the painfully unfair, and the pathetically inequitable. This tendency is so because it is accepted by many to be unpatriotic to make America look the fool, and to point out the inequities in the society, for if this is ever done the idea that this is the nation of the free and unrepressed is questioned. Again as it is mentioned above, patriotism is all too often interchangeable with nationalism.

Nearly half a century later the lesson of Steinbeck is still pertinent because despite all that has been achieved for the common worker much still remains to be accomplished.

FDR’s New Deal and the natural political evolution that grew out of that movement has done much to help working people but much of that natural evolution was later retarded by the rise of the conservative forces in the country.

Beginning long before the 1980’s but definitely coming to age in the time period known as the Republican Revolution, views towards unions and organized labor began to sour. Instead of policies that were pro-union and for a strong middle class, philosophies that favored concentrations of wealth and greater inequity began to come back into popular favor.

The reasons for these are many, one of which were the points that conservatives began to espouse to the American people. These messages included the idea that the government was a nuisance that needed to be removed and limited, that the best way to lead a country was not to look towards democratic institutions but instead private companies, and finally that those who had very little deserved their state and that concern for them was dangerous communism. Although the politicians of this era are very much to blame for what they did to harm the labor movement it should be noted that they were not alone in their progress. It should always be remembered that politicians are only as strong as the people who support them. The situation that the United States finds itself in at any time period is the direct result of citizens either demanding certain policies or being apathetic towards the government, therefore to summarize Shakespeare the fault dear reader lie not in our political leaders but in ourselves.

There will of course be many who read this essay that say that this is ridiculous and that the conservative philosophy towards economics is somehow superior. Fortunately the conservative movement is not renowned for innovation and therefore the points that will be raised by the conservative reader can easily be foreseen. To begin the underlying statements of conservatism will be examined.

Conservatives essentially make two claims when it comes to governing and the role of government in economics. On the one hand they claim that the government should simply stay out of as much as possible and instead give the keys to leading the country to the “people.” This is the first claim, and intellectuals on the left, eager to finally break from arguing with evangelicals, embrace it as a legitimate academic thought, ignoring the following point conservatives make about the economy. That second claim is that all in all unions and organized labor is bad for the economy.

Now the term “people” is a confusing expression because on the surface it looks as if the conservatives are saying that every single citizen is collectively responsible and therefore valued in the decision making process. Yet, on a closer examination people can see that “people” are really a select few, who have either been diligent or simply lucky enough to come to a position where they can gain enough financial might to earn a place on the American Mount Olympus where they can then hand down their decisions to others.

In the United States we fuel our egos and pretend this is somehow original to the world and therefore call it Reaganomics, a system that proudly espouses that the super rich will hold the keys to the economy and a trickledown effect will benefit everyone. Of course to any adequate historian or political scientist a brief musing over Reaganomics shows that it is nothing new but instead a reinvention of the socio-economic wheel. All one need do to see Reaganomics at work in history is to peruse European history. Feudalism, as any grade student will dutifully report, is a system where a few landed gentry (individuals who got to that position because of diligence or luck) have control over a mass majority of the population. The only way this system really works is if a political philosophy prevails where it is deemed ethical that a few have more than the many. This is not only true for material goods, but also influence in policy, practical control over what is circulated in the media, and monopoly over the direction of public discourse. In short Reaganomics is American feudalism.

Now the reason it is odd that conservatives make the two claims is that on the one hand they say that citizens and the public should determine the course of the country, this is illustrated in private companies as well as gatherings of citizens to bring about change on their own. However, conservatives also state that unions are a bad thing for the financial system so what occurs is

only the private companies are legitimate in the conservatives’ eyes for shaping the economy.

The next argument that conservatives are prone to make concerning unions is the idea that unions hurt worker productivity, that they are detrimental to a company’s profits, and that in fact they do more harm than good. This is a very bizarre claim because again anyone who has seriously studied history knows this to be false. Granted is the point that unions bring about their own issues and complications. Such is the case with anything in life, but to go from that admittance to the idea that somehow unions have led to a worse environment is ridiculous. Before organized labor it was common to have children work in coal mines and expose workers to equipment that could lead to serious disfigurement or even death. It is difficult to imagine that there is any human alive who would honestly hold that it is far worse for company’s profits to be cut then it is to have a child killed in a coal mine.

The only reason these conditions disappeared in the United States was because unions and workers forced the government and private sector to change. As Populist newspaper columnist Molly Ivins put it, “Although it is true that only about 20 percent of American workers are in unions, that 20 percent sets the standards across the board in salaries, benefits and working conditions. If you are making a decent salary in a non-union company, you owe that to the unions. One thing that corporations do not do is give out money out of the goodness of their hearts.”

This should be very apparent because although unions have been hurt in the past few decades it is nothing compared to what the rest of the world has had to experience. In an attempt to short change the American people companies have not only outsourced jobs but also pre-New Deal working conditions to the people of the developing world. And the cruelest irony of all is that for the most part people will become angry at the poor soul in India, China, or some other nation for taking “their” job instead of becoming mad at the companies that refuse to recognize their work force as human beings.

In closing, I would like to address all of those who still slumber in ignorance over this issue and continue to yell “communist”, “socialist”, or whatever large companies are labeling those who believe workers have fundamental rights. This is not communism, or socialism. It is in essence simply right; humans have the right to be treated like humans.

To quote the great social philosopher himself, “The strongest bond of human sympathy outside the family relation should be one uniting working people of all nations and tongues and kindreds.” No it was not Karl Marx, but instead the radical Abraham Lincoln. If you will excuse me now dear reader I have some reading to catch up on and judging by the refusal of many to accept the simple, I will probably be engrossed with Steinbeck for quite some time to further understand our present state.

-Wes Bishop
Dayton Ohio
October 11, 2009

nb: if readers are interested in following this blog - pls join our Facebook support group:

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=152326549326#/group.php?gid=58243419565

Analysing America's Health Debate - by Wes Bishop

The GOP's Waterloo

Shortly before the August recess, before the various members of Congress returned to their districts and states, a coalition of conservative organizers held a meeting in which Senator Jim DeMint R-SC stated in a conference call that, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him…” The comment had been preceded by a careful strategy that if the health care vote could make it past the August recess then conservatives would be able to apply pressure in town hall meetings, demonstrations, and calls to congressional offices. In all honesty it was not a bad plan. It was perfectly constitutional, and conservatives, despite their past mistakes, have every right to make their voices heard to their elected officials.

However, the plan was seriously flawed in many aspects. In the August to follow accusations began to abound that the concerns being expressed by conservatives were not real, that the conservative movement was being manufactured, and that in fact the goal of the protest had nothing to do with health care but instead to slow down a piece of legislation for political purposes. Such was the position taken by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In many ways this was both true and false. The reason this dichotomy exist is because there is almost always a difference between what a populace is protesting and what political leaders want to extract from those protest.

One need look no further then the 1990’s to see that a significant number of Americans have anxiety over the concept of health care reform. This should not be surprising. Ever since Harry Truman the health care and the insurance industry have put much time and money into the message that health care reform is bad, that it is unnecessary, and that it is a form of the dreaded “Red Menace.” These concerns are real and politicians such as Reid and Pelosi ignore them at their own risk, but a close examination reveals that this time the opposition truly is different from even a few years ago. What is different this time is that the conservatives are not focusing on what is important. This is where DeMint’s plan is fundamentally flawed, because DeMint and many of the protesters are not in fact protesting health care reform, no more then the TEA Parties where demonstrations concerning taxes. Instead, what these August demonstrations are is really just protest against Obama. One hears the term Obamacare, one can readily see Obama on protester signs dressed as a quasi-Hitler, and politicians such as former Governor Palin are creating science fiction scenarios where the elderly and sick have to prove their worth to live.

It is all nonsense, and reasonable American citizens are beginning to understand that. The very name, Obamacare, is a reflection that conservatives are angry that John McCain and Sarah Palin lost, and not how health care is going to be provided. In reality it is congress that is writing this bill, not Obama, so a better term would be Congresscare. Yet, since the protesters are mad that Obama is president above all else no one will see this as the driving force or loose label used by protesters.

DeMint himself illustrates this Obama obsession that the conservatives have developed by comparing American legislation to Waterloo, the 1815 battle were various European Allies succeeded in stopping the French Emperor Napoleon. It occurred after Napoleon had returned to France after his 100 days of return from exile.

If the Nazi comparisons are shameful in the exploiting of historical emotions then the comparison to Waterloo is just plain silly. Not surprising considering DeMint’s claim to be for individual liberty but also in favor of banning single mothers living with significant others from teaching.

Health care reform is needed, even the staunchest conservative will admit this fact. It will most likely occur with or without the support of the conservatives but in the sake of preserving their own movement leaders such as DeMint had better come to terms with history. This will include accepting the 2008 presidential election and understanding what Waterloo was really all about because if the GOP destroys health care reform again it will not matter what temporary victory they will have achieved. Like Napoleon they will face a brief and bitter return to power before being ousted, and perhaps like the French Monarch this time it will be permanent.

-Wes Bishop

Reform, Revolution, and Reflection

Below is a left-liberal critique from Wes Bishop on the theme of "reform versus revolution". Later tonight Lev Lafayette will be posting a radical/socialist response to that same theme. John Passant has also indicated an interest in replying by the end of the week. Please visit regularly to follow the debate... All readers on the broad left are welcome to contribute to the debate...

Recently Tristan e-mailed me with the request of taking part in a debate about the legitimacy of socialism and whether or not as a stated goal it should be achieved through the avenues of reform or the raging straits of revolution. Upon approaching the answering of this interrogative I came to several conclusions quite quickly, a process that is indispensable for a commentator. The first conclusion I drew was that I am not a socialist. Therefore, to answer the question of how best to achieve socialism is akin to asking the King of Saudi Arabia the best pathway to western style democracy. This first conclusion left me at somewhat of a loss of words, because how can an American capitalist be trusted with the answering of such a question?

As is typical with myself I put the dilemma on the backburner of my mind and let it ferment for a few days before returning. I was not disappointed. Returning to the question I remembered one of the wise lessons my former professor, Dr. Ralph Carbone, had taught me year ago. For two years I had the benefit of learning from this master of rhetoric (i.e. person who LOVED to argue). In his classes he had a fascinating way of educating people about an issue. Walking into the classroom he would announce loudly, “This side of the room your pro-[this], this side your pro-[that]!” It wouldn’t matter what subject, evolution, abortion, immigration, the nature of beauty, all of that was reduced to what side of the room you were sitting in at the time of his announcement. Quickly, people would scramble to get to the side of the room they most strongly agreed with and then the debate would be ready to begin. On several occasions I purposefully sat on the other side of the room, than that of the one I agreed with, because as I found out I could learn much more about an issue (and subsequently myself) by arguing a point I did not agree with. Time and again I would spend entire class sessions, passionately defending intelligent design (that was a treat) or the right of the state to regulate what women can do with their bodies. What astounded me the most was not the fact that I could effectively defend a view point I disagreed with but that movements and philosophies that I found and still find completely incompetent could have valid objections. This realization hit me full force when Dr. Carbone and I began going back and forth over the issue of evolution vs. intelligent design. Typically Dr. Carbone would raise a point, I would counter it, and then he would come back with another counterpoint that shut my argument down. Yet, on this occasion after Dr. Carbone had countered, I came back with another whole new point and effectively refuted his argument. Silence fell over the room as everyone turned to look at me, and Dr. Carbone contemplated for a moment, finally resorting to a fancy two step to avoid the point. I sat stunned with what I had just accomplished; I an upstart sophomore from south eastern Ohio had just shut down a fully fledged Ph.D.

The point of my inclusion of this trip down memory lane in this essay is this, although I do not agree with socialism attempting to argue its case (and how to achieve it in a society) taught me much about the movement and led me to an inevitable conclusion in answering the question, REFORM or REVOLUTION?

Put simply, revolution is not the answer, and reform is the path that should always be attempted, tirelessly and diligently. Now as an engaged reader the question naturally follows as to why this is the case? Why reform? Why not revolution? Is it not hypocritical for an American to condemn revolution, when the country all Americans belong too was born in the throes of revolt?

Again to answer it simply, no it is not hypocritical, and reform is the better path for many different reasons. First off it is not hypocritical because what the American founding fathers engaged in was a risky gambit that could have easily backfired and caused severe repercussions for generations and generations. Yet, the founding fathers were lucky, and more importantly pushed by the British to the point that revolution was the most viable solution for their people. In such a case revolution, unfortunately, was warranted, but as any quick survey of history will reveal, revolutions seldom end as well as America’s, with massive social upheavals and economic disparity being the norm instead of the exception.

Socialist that seek to enact their policies should remember this, as it is overly apparent in the western democracies that civic pathways are open to change. Granted this change can sometimes be frustratingly slow, but reform allows for something that revolution very seldom does. And that factor is the beneficial practice of clear reflection.

As the above story illustrates reflection allows for people to contemplate their situation, and their goals, learning about themselves and what they believe. Reform will allow for the enactors of policies to re-evaluate the course they have chosen, modifying it when necessary, and abandoning it when it is no longer fruitful. The members of my class that rushed quickly to their desired side of the classroom behaved much like revolutionaries. So sure where they of their paths that they felt that no further reflection was needed, no more contemplation warranted. A side was chosen, and that side was now to be defended until the end. Such is the case of revolution, for both parties involved.

For the actual merits of socialism, I will conclude with these parting thoughts-

Inside the United States today there is growing pressure to view our economic system (and the economic systems of the world) in a black and white fashion. This new dogma (or not so new dogma) reduces the world into the inaccurate description of pure capitalism, and pure socialism. In many ways this movement is a precursor to the revolutionary mentality, which pits one faction against another. Automatically, the culture of today is slapping labels on people and telling them, “Look, that person is the enemy, we need to oppose them.”

I speak on behalf of all common sense in America when I put forth the following claim, economics should never be a battleground of ideology, or politics. It should always be an objective approach to what is best for the people of a nation. There will be differences in opinion. There always are, but pretending that the States are teetering on the edge of Socialistic revolution is the same as believing that the U.S. is going to become an Islamic theocracy. Thankfully, many in my country have heeded the lesson of reform and have followed it.

Unfortunately, there are the red herring trumpeters who say Obama will make us socialist, because of the recent response to the economic crisis. However, let one thing be clear, although there is a lot of resentment in the U.S. for “socialism” in the financial and auto industries it should be remembered that the free markets asked for this government assistance. Washington did not storm the lobbies of Detroit and Wall Street; the free market came to the halls of Capital Hill seeking government aid and intervention. Socialism has won an important victory through patient reform on this occurrence because it is vindicated in the conviction that markets are incapable of regulating themselves, and that governments have a fundamental right to protect their citizenry. This tip of the hat to socialism would render from my fellow capitalist a quick condemnation that includes some benign comparison to Stalin. To this I say the following, criticizing socialism because of Stalin is paramount to denouncing democracy because of Iraq.

I stand after all of this an even more radical moderate in my economic philosophy. Although a capitalist, I am quick to denounce the drastic ramblings of Ayn Rand and state that to the contrary of what Objectivist teach, mixed economies are a sign of a viable nation and responsible government.

I have reached these conclusions through reflection, which has been permitted because reform has ruled over revolution. If a young writer can benefit from this practice both now, and as a sophomore years ago, imagine what a world full of individuals could gain from the same feat.

-Wes Bishop

The New Red Scare

The red scare. Mere mention of the politically loaded phrase conjures up images of masses of people assembling with hyperbole pitchforks and parading “anti-American” individuals before a committee in the Senate or House of Representatives. Yet in fact, the term “Red Scare” historically can be ascribed to two different time periods in America’s history. The first lasting roughly from 1917 until 1920 and the second from the late 1940’s to the late 1950’s. The first red scare was a reaction to the overthrow of the Russian Czar and the Bolshevik Revolution that first brought Communism to power in Russia. It was a movement felt throughout the Western World and led to a further chilling of relations between the Western democracies and Russia, a relationship that before the revolution was shaky at best. The revolution effectively took Russia out of WWI, forcing the power to sign a peace treaty with Germany, and at its intellectual basis created a differing political movement that would run counter to the ideas of democratic capitalism in the west. 

The second red scare is somewhat more documented. With such figures as Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Hollywood blacklist, that created martyrs such as playwright Arthur Miller, it today serves as a warning of what hysteria can create in a country. 

The term red scare in effect refers to the fear that many in the western world had in regards to communism, the term red pertaining to the red flag of the Soviet Union. Even though the red scare for most purposes ended by the late 1950’s it continued well into the 1960’s and in some ways to present day politics. 

The conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote a book in 2008 titled Liberal Fascism. The book mainly deals with criticizing then assumed nominee Hillary Clinton on her policies, but the main thesis of the book is that fascism is a word thrown about by the liberal movement in America and that in fact fascism comes from liberalism. The book was controversial, as it was meant to be, and in retrospect seems outdated for its continuous assault on Clinton. Yet the spirit of the thesis, that a word is thrown about without knowledge of its meaning, is one that I would now like to borrow from Mr. Goldberg to suit my own purpose here in this column.

Socialism, and communism are words that today are bantered about by the right wing of the GOP with as little regard as to what it applies to much like Goldberg’s alleged liberal fascist labelers. Tune into FOX or listen to any die hard of the Republican Party and you will quickly “learn” that Obama is a socialist. Nancy Pelosi is a Socialist. The Democratic Party is a communist party…etc. In all honesty this has nothing to do with policies but instead it is a word that inspires fear therefore it is used as a label for political purposes. 

Now the argument could be made that Obama is a socialist because he is using the government to help the financial and auto industries, and because he has approved a massive spending bill for the country. However if this is accurate then FDR was also a communist for it was he that used government intervention to help the country get out of economic turmoil, and the GOP has been trying nonstop for the past several years to make Iraq into a modern day socialist country with its continual use of government aid. 

Right wing advocates of the past administration also should have a difficult time explaining their stance on such controversial issues as warrantless wiretapping, torture, and suspension of habeas corpus for certain individuals. Because the interesting thing about this new red scare by the conservatives is that they claim Obama’s policies will limit citizens liberties. It is ironic that the GOP advocated so heavily for a suspension of those liberties but now criticizes the Obama Administration for its policies because it “may” lead to the very thing they wanted. In other words conservatives are saying that if Obama gets his way and is allowed to attempt to assist the country by building up infrastructure, investing in green technology, and putting money in the American economy then the American people someday will wake up under that dreaded red Soviet flag. This is opposed to the GOP which for the past few years stated that one should skip all of that above mentioned spending on the country and go straight to the dreaded flag.

Unlike Goldberg’s false premise that fascism came from liberalism, this columnist does not claim that conservatism came from communism. Yet certain factions in the right wing movement advocate very bizarre notions when it comes to their brand of liberty. The notion that Bush was correct in his expansion of power while Obama is incorrect for using the government to stabilize the economy. That the Democrats are communist while holding the conviction that if one does not belong to their political party they are un-American. Perhaps it is like my grandmother told me years ago, that if someone hates something long enough and hard enough they will eventually become what they hated. It is for this reason that the GOP has morphed into something that only a few decades ago they would have detested. Red scares, based on fear, leads to hate dear reader. Hate has no power other than that to destroy.

by Wes Bishop

Pandora’s Box: Separation of Church & State in the US

by Wes Bishop

            Early in his administration, former President George W. Bush created a special office known as the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Unable to get backing in Congress for the creation of this new office former President Bush relied solely on an executive order to keep the office in existence. Bush drew criticism from many Democrats and moderate Republicans for this act. Some cited the violation of separation of church and state, while others claimed that it was wrong for the President to bypass Congress to create a new executive department, when he knew the legislative branch did not support it. Fair criticisms, yet for all who were conscious during the past eight years it comes as no surprise that the conservative President Bush interpreted the Constitution liberally.

            In a recent move, newly elected President Obama has decided to keep the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Just as Bush created the office through executive order, so too is President Obama keeping the department, again leaving Congress bypassed. This act has drawn criticism for President Obama, with skeptics pointing to the violation of separation of church and state, and the excluding of the legislative branch in decisions of government.

            President Obama attempted to answer these concerns in a speech this February 5. “The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another or even religious groups over secular groups,” Obama stated before a gathered group. “It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.”

            According to this line of reasoning President Obama is claiming that the best way to keep religion and government separate is to have a government office ran by a religious leader that allocates money to various religious groups to do a job for the government. In short, the government is working with a religious organization, and therefore they are no longer separate.

            However, there is the claim that President Obama will not permit these organizations that receive money to discriminate hiring practices based on religion or sexual orientation. Yet this claim fails to acknowledge the fact that President Obama will not always be the current President. Already social conservatives are learning this lesson, by supporting and allowing President Bush to create this office they are now forced to see their tax dollars going to religious and secular organizations they do not support. Social conservatives failed to realize the power they gave Bush is the power Obama inherits. Sadly, supporters of Obama’s decision are making the same mistake. As of now the office will not be used to discriminate against gays or limit a woman’s choice in pregnancy, but when Obama is out of office what will occur? Obama, no doubt will walk the ambiguous line he has drawn in regards to separation of Church and State, but the next President may not be so cautious.

            In Greek mythology, there exist the story of Pandora and her lethal box. According to the myth Pandora was commanded not to open a box she was entrusted to keep closed. Ignoring her instructions, she opened the box and from it, evil spirits were released upon the human race. No matter how much she wanted to Pandora was unable to take back what she had done.

             Much like Pandora, Obama and social liberals will someday be faced with the same problem. This is shown in history, in 1995 former President Bill Clinton signed a presidential directive allowing the practice of extraordinary rendition, a practice that legally allowed the U.S. to hand over suspects to another country. At the time there was little concern, as many defenders pointed out Clinton would not abuse the power. However, during President Bush’s administration the practice was used to deny legal rights and engage in torturing suspects.

            Mythology, just like history, seems destined to repeat itself, especially when politicians and the citizenry fail to learn both.

Wes Bishop is a senior at Ohio University. 

He can be reached at bishop930@yahoo.com