The past seven days have brought news that ‘Brits are among the ugliest people in the world’ besides Hugo Chávez raising concerns over obesity – an issue that can apparently only be tackled through socialism – in an attempt to preserve Venezuela’s reputation for producing individuals of exceptional physical beauty. It’s therefore clearly apparent that there’s a link here to explore regarding the influence of the certain type of political regime upon the aesthetic appeal of a country’s population. Charles Hardy attempts as much here, but pretty much fails by not extending his argument beyond the fact that Venezuela has a largely mixed-race population, which has little (or basically nothing) to do with the nation’s socialist government. 

As most followers of all things Lebanese know, a unity government headed by Saad Hariri has been formed after five months of… well, formation. Ziad Baroud is going to retain his position as Minister of Interior (president’s share) and that is good news. But there is even better news: The Free Patriotic Movement has chosen no other than economist, activist, and intellectual Sharbil Nahhas for the post of Minister of Telecommunications. To those of you not familiar with Sharbil Nahhas, his website (trilingual) gives a good idea of his qualifications. Nahhas is a reformer in spirit with a fundamental critique and understanding of our sectarian system. Over the past two decades, Nahhas has put together several proposals, such as a strategy for social development and a law proposal for a pension scheme, that, needless to say, never made it through the system. As the inside man, there is reason to hope a little.

Other than Baroud and Nahhas, there are actually some good choices in this makeup (by “good” I mean people who are actually into “governing” while in government). Rayya Haffar al-Hassan (Future Movement) came in as first Lebanese female minister of Finance ever and one of two women in the unity government. No fundamental change is going to come from these quarters. She has been schooled by Hariri and Sanioura and, as she herself has declared, she intends to follow similar financial policies. But to be realistic, she is competent and one can hope this will reflect on the ever ballooning public debt. Fadi Abboud (FPM, tourism) and Hassan Mnaymnah (Future Movement, education) are also promising choices. As for Amal, Hizballah, and Junblat, they have mostly exhibited characteristic lack of creativity in their choice of ministers.

There has also been a lot of focus in the media on Hariri’s snub to the Kataeb. The Gemayyel party has been dealt what is regarded in Lebanon as a third rate ministry, namely Social Affairs. There are two things to note here. The first is that far from being a shock, this comes as the culmination of the problems Kataeb has been having with March 14, not just Hariri. The second point is summarized succinctly by Khaled Saghiyah in today’s al-Akhbar: “The government to Hariri is like the weapons to Hizballah; you can support it as an ally but you cannot partake of it.”

Next on the agenda, a Hariri pilgrimage to Damascus to be followed by a Junblat chaser.

defeated option

The United States political system claims to welcome varying political parties and intermittent points of view. I call bullshit. We have been relegated to a two party system, whereby two nearly identical political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, hold all the weight in creating legislation which its citizens must abide by. With the exception of one member in Congress, who considers himself a Socialist Democrat (Bernie Sanders, I-VT), our political leaders more or less maintain the status quo by virtue of never allowing the mere possibility of change whatsoever. It’s always welcomed for individuals such as Ralph Nader to throw themselves into the mix as a presidential candidate, but let’s be real, the American public have been indoctrinated to believe that either a Republican or a Democrat will emerge victorious. Two factors can be blamed on this – money and mass media. Yes, that’s right, yet again I’m pointing my finger at the two evils most responsible for the ills within this country – greed and television. We have reached a pinnacle in which these two mitigating factors hold the most weight in our political system.

The major issue of this ridiculous thing we call the two party system underscores the single greatest problem within our government. There exists an abundance of more than just Democratic and Republican candidates in any local, state, or federal election. With the plethora of parties involved in any given election, the end result is always the same – a Republican or a Democrat garnering the votes needed to hold office. This is where money plays a significant role. Both aforementioned parties elicit disproportionate amounts of fiscal contributions from independent individuals and big business that aim to finance their campaigns. Deprived of such monetary contributions, the ‘insignificant’ parties are not able to secure the necessary voters required to participate in televised appearances such as debates, talk shows, news interviews, and campaign advertisements. Without this crucial media coverage, one cannot hope to remain competitive and win an election.

Although this process is unjust and unfair in and of itself and in no way can be representative of a democratic system, it doesn’t even compare to the encroachments partaken by the two major political parties responsible for serving to benefit their rich campaign contributors. In an effort to amass the approval of the corporations that fund their campaigns, the two parties are forced to cultivate a favorable view of a greedy, capitalistic disposition. In essence, the absurdly wealthy continue to play the largest role in deciding elections. How can this be looked at as representative of the majority?

Both parties see it as essential that they pander to the wants and needs of the top tier of wealth within our society. As soon as they lose the support of the wealthy, they can kiss their political aspirations goodbye. Obviously, there must only be one winner in every election. So, even as one of the major parties loses an election, the other remains and has thus guaranteed the tiniest percentage of the population (the rich) in absolute control over our legislative process. The left leaning Democrat differs ever so slightly from their right leaning Republican counterpart, but they both maintain identical spheres of influence within their pro-corporate policies.

In the end, when the dust has settled, we are left with a puppet nation whose strings are pulled by the richest of the rich. The two-party system will never represent the greater good of this country. The richest person in this country has one vote, and the poorest individual has one vote. A collective will and uniting force against the upper class must happen. Let’s end this charade now.

Walid Junblat’s defection from the March 14 camp has attracted the attention of many friends and sympathizers outside Lebanon. From a wide-ranging history that moves from freedom fighter to war criminal to garbage man in New York to neo-con and back, people as different as Lebanon “expert” Lee Smith and UN’s Michael Williams have decided to freeze Junblat into how they like to see him and how they have seen him over the past four years. Smith and Williams have more in common when it comes to Junblat, as both refer to him as “Walid Beik.” After embracing his quasi-feudal status, both men also excuse Walid Beik’s move as a political exigency necessitated by the special position of his clan in Lebanon. And are not all Lebanese clans “special,” I wonder?

But I agree with Lee Smith on one thing: Walid Junblat is no weather vane. He is no cynical know-it-all who coldly calculates his every move and strikes without others knowing what hit them. After all, March 14 has been deadwood for more than a year now. And Walid Junblat did not complete his turn suddenly; he has been preparing his people for it since early this year. Nor was he the only one to soften up over the last year. The heat before the elections was a necessary sectarian galvanization to capture the vote. But apart from that, the rhetoric has gone down a few decibels over the past year.

No, Junblat is no weather vane. The composition of the government (15-10-5 by most accounts) has already been agreed on by Saudi Arabi and Syria. Some say as early as late June/early July. The “S-S,” as the two are referred to these days, have smoothed many ripples lately and the mutual  flirtation between Saad al-Hariri and the Syrian regime right after the elections was evidence of that. So much flirtation, in fact, that there was a hue and cry among Hariri’s Christian allies when the idea that he might visit Damascus before the government was formed was floated around.

With the outcry against Junblat’s “betrayal” fading away, perhaps it can now be assessed more calmly. Saadallah Mazraani has done exactly that in an overview of the Beiks historical turns. But a short term effect of Junblat’s latest turn has not received much attention: With Junblat’s daramturgy, Saad al-Hariri’s task suddenly became easier. Hariri’s visit to Damascus is no longer discussed in terms of “if,” but rather in terms of “when.” That is not the function of a weather vane. I would venture and say that, as far as the relationship between Damascus and Hariri goes, Walid Junblat is, in fact, a bottle of champagne. Cheers!

“ America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve. ” — Tom Morello

“The only medicine communism has invented–the centralised, beyond social control, state ownership of the national wealth and one-party rule–is worse than the illness it is supposed to cure; it is less efficient economically and it makes the bureaucratic character of social relations an absolute principle.”

–Polish philosopher, Mr. Leszek Kolakowski

Hello,

I am creating this blog to provide an analytic and insightful viewpoint into the life of an young America as they are faced with the obstacles of a failed economy and jaded political system.  I hope to create a cohort of readers that like myself are interested in being leaders in their community, but are faced everyday with verbal or written letters of rejection, piling school debt and a very dark depressing daily routine of closed doors and pessimism.

This blog will detail my conception of the American political system, economy and current job market as it relates to recent college graduates and others struggling in their twenties/thirties trying to find their place in the American society, many of which were promised the American dream, desiring to be leaders in their community but have succumb to being average.  So average in fact that many have sought employment at malls, restaurants, telemarketing etc.  Jobs that they thought they could rise above after obtaining a college degree, but have realized that the ugly truth in America is that a college degree no longer guarantees you an exit ticket out of the life of average monotonous jobs, but it simply a means to develop friendships and theoretical concepts which you hope will one day develop into qualifications that will allow you to stretch your wings and show the world what you are made of.

Like Capitalism, Communism is not a single political, socio-economic system but a term used to denote any number of systems based around the abolition of private property and the establishment of a democratic, classless system. Listed below are some of the more major forms of Communism.

Classical Communism/Marxism

A common misconception about Communism is that it was created by Karl Marx. In reality, however, the concept of Communism existed before Marx’s time and it was a young Karl Marx who became Communist, rather than Karl Marx founding Communism. Nevertheless, Marx did for Communism what Adam Smith did for Capitalism. Marx, by writing the first authoritive Communist works (particularly The Communist Manifesto) will be forever credited with establishing the basic principles of Communism (also called Marxism). The fundamentals of Communism, as discussed in previous posts, is that the working class, after ages of exploitation by the upper classes, will revolt and establish a new world order in which all property is shared, the concepts of royalty and nobility are abolished and democracy is instated, and the entire class system is destroyed in place of a single, working class. While this might appear more or less straightforward, the exact details of the Communist society were never stated by Marx, and as a result, many have built off of Classical Communism and combined it with other political and economic theories.

Christian Communism

Perhaps the earliest known Communist society was the primitive Christian Church. According to early records and the Christian bible, the Christian community (though technically the word “Christian” had not yet been created) shared all property and had a government specially created to facilitate the distribution of property. As Christianity grew and became more institutionalized, Christian Communism died out and was not revived until the early 1600s, when religious separatists began colonizing America (the most famous of these groups to instate Christian Communism was the Plymouth colony). Again, as Christianity became more established in the New World and as more and more settlers arrived, Christian Communism withered away again (though some groups, such as the Amish and Hutterites, have kept it alive in certain parts of America). Aside from a brief period in the 1700s when many Catholic Missions cooperated with the local Native American population as isolated Communist societies, the actual practice of Communism has died out among most Christian sects- partly because of the spread of Capitalism and partly because of the religious persecution instated by the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea (motivated by Marx’s rather disparaging attitude towards religion). Nevertheless, many Christians have combined Christianity and Marxism, stating Marx’s anti-religious comments were the result of corruption within the church at the time. Indeed, in many parts of the world Christianity and Marxism have been combined as the basis for anti-Capitalist revolution (take the Palestinian PFLP, or the Catholic “Liberation Theology” for example).

Leninism (Bolshevism)

Leninism is the political/socio-economic plan that was in the process of being instated in post-revolutionary Russia. Pioneered by the revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin, Leninism (sometimes called “Bolshevism” after Lenin’s party) was more or less the same as Classical Marxism with a few added modifications. Firstly, Leninism holds that in order to effectively redistribute property and manage the national workforce, a strong centralized (federal) government was required. Secondly, Leninism focused on industrialism, factory workers, and production- attempting to make industry the backbone of the Communist society (though it should be noted that some hold that the Leninist focus on factory work was a result of Russia’s involvement in WWI, not ideology).

Maoism

While most Communists hold that Mao Zedong was nothing more than a dictator and a narcissistic megalomaniac who used Communism as a Trojan horse to seize control of China, there are a number of those who believe that before Mao came to power he was a genuine believer in Communism. Using Mao’s early actions and teachings, “Maoism” has been developed as a Communist philosophy acting almost as a counter-balance to Leninism. Unlike Leninism, Maoism demands a strong provincial (state, local) government rather than a massive central power. Also, Maoism puts emphasis on peasants, farmers, and agriculture as the foundation of a Communist society (as opposed to the Leninist focus on industry).

Trotskyism

Created by Leon Trotsky after his exile from Russia by Joseph Stalin, Trotskyism is what one might call “the left wing of Communism”. Trotskyism focuses on the revolutionary aspect of Communism. While most other schools of Communism believe that the revolution must occur before the establishment of the Communist society, Trotskyism holds that a Communist society and the revolution will be happen almost simultaneously. Trotskyism is also perhaps the most anarchic form of Communism, focusing heavily on localized government and state/provincial rights (extremely similar to the Jeffersonian of the early US). Another major aspect of Trotskyite Communism is the belief in circular-revolution, the concept (originating in ancient China as the “Mandate of Heaven”) essentially states that all governments- including Communist governments- will become inevitably corrupt over time, therefore it is not the right but the obligation of the public to revolt and instate a new government each time this happens (a principal also found in The Declaration of Independence).

Luxemburgism

Established by Rosa Luxemburg, this form of Communism is perhaps the middle-ground between Leninism and Maoism. Lexemburgism focuses on the importance of ensuring Democracy, and calls for a balance between local and centralized power. Luxemburgism also calls for populism and general abolition of political parties (extremely similar to the philosophy of George Washington and- with the exception of the call for the balance between federalism and provincialism- Andrew Jackson).

Green/Eco/Environmental Communism

Perhaps the youngest form of Communism, Environmental Communism holds that Capitalism is destroying the planet’s ecosystem and devouring its resources and that Communism is the only viable solution. Eco Communism (as it is sometimes also called) focuses on low-consumption levels through shared property, controlled levels of production, and a lack of corporations blamed for damaging the plant. While most Communist contemporary Communist systems espouse some form of ecological protection, Eco Communism differs in that the protection of the environment is the primary goal, rather than establishing a Communist society based on agriculture or religious principles.

Revisionary Communism

The term “Revisionary Communism” does not refer to a specific philosophy or class of Communism but rather an aspect. While Revisionary Communism can be applied to almost any non-Classical Marxist ideology, it is most often used to describe various fringe groups who believe in amending some or all of Marx’s teachings, particularly on the subject of the Proletariat revolution or class system. While technically Communist, these groups are often motivated by the belief that Marx’s revolutionary ideology is too harsh or unnecessary for a Communist society to be implemented.

Pseudo Communism

Technically, this category refers not to Communists but to various groups, individuals, or philosophies claiming to be Communist but in reality functioning as something else. The best example of this would be the post-Leninist Soviet Union, which claimed to be Marxist but in actuality was simply a Socialist dictatorship. “Pseudo Communism” is, of course, a derogatory name most often given to Stalinist and Contemporary-Maoist groups. It is also used by some to mock Revisionary Communism.

Glenn Reynolds — I’ve enjoyed his take on this:

MICKEY KAUS makes this interesting point: Bush doesn’t really look like he’s having a lot of fun being President. And people who don’t enjoy being President usually aren’t reelected.

This is a problem — and not just for Bush. To me, one of the refreshing things about Bush is that he doesn’t display Clinton’s rather narcissistic “It’s good to be the King” pleasure in office. It’s obvious that Bush could be a happy guy whether or not he were President. (Al Gore, unfortunately, looks like he’d be an unhappy guy whether or not he were President).

But if Kaus is right, our system actually selects for people who love the job. And since, as most people (perhaps even Kaus) would agree, being President is a job no sane person could really love for eight yearsthen what does that say about our Presidential selection system? Is it selecting for kooks? Certainly a lot of our Presidents have been, er, mentally less than admirable: Kennedy, with his risk-taking and narcissism, LBJ with his megalomania, bullying and, well, LBJ-ness, Nixon with his paranoia, depression and obsessive-compulsiveness, Clinton with his narcissism, sexual compulsiveness, and compulsive lying. Carter was/is clearly sane — and also stands as evidence for Kaus’s position. Ditto for Papa Bush. Reagan is a tougher question: he certainly wasn’t crazy. And as an actor, I suppose he was able to play the President in a way that made the experience more enjoyable for him than it would be for many others. (Yes, I know, there’s some reason to think that his mental faculties were already beginning to fail before he left office — but I don’t think that’s the same as the sort of personality-disordered thing that Nixon, Clinton, etc. had going on).

I guess I’d have to call the crazy-President corollary to Kaus’s theorem unproven, but with a lot of suggestive evidence. Hmm. Here’s a slogan for ‘04, for whatever candidate wants it: ” ______ in ‘04: JUST CRAZY ENOUGH TO WANT TO BE YOUR PRESIDENT!”

The danish parliament – in danish: folketinget – is the the legislative power in Denmark.  The parliament consists of 179 members elected for a maximum of four years.

The parliamentary elections are secret and free.  The election procedure is proportional representation. This choice will ensure a balanced representation of the opinions that exist among voters, by distribution of mandates at constituencies.

You have the right to vote for parliament, if you are a Danish citizen, living in Denmark and 18 years old. To be eligible for the parliament you must not be punished for an illegal act. However, it is the parliament itself, which determines whether the members stand for election.

The parliaments work is led by a “committee” (not the committee mentioned in the video) which consist a “president” and four “vicepresidents”.

But how does the parliament works? This is a step by step guide through the political landscape of creating a law

Visit my channel: PoliticsInDanish

An "invalid" ballot: "Shit on you and on these elections. 'Banana republic.' Signed: A decent citizen." (Source: www.al-akhbar.com/ar/node/140198)

Since I have nothing to do but write a dissertation, I spent last night trying to make some sense of the numerical aspects of the elections. This year, thanks to Minister of Interior Ziad Baroud, blank votes were counted separately and not together with invalid votes. This went down well with eleven thousand one hundred and ninety-seven voters, or 0.82% of cast ballots (Sean has a table with the breakdown of blank votes per district). It might not seem much, but one has to keep in mind the voting conditions at various polling stations and that this is the first time a distinction between “blank” and “invalid” votes is implemented. Given that in Lebanese elections no one is ever sure how many of the eligible voters are actually alive or around, abstaining from the vote in protest might be misinterpreted as, well, death. That is why I think the blank vote is important — it not only protests the lack of choices, but it also asserts a presence, both physical and political.

My other perfect excuse for procrastination was “the popular vote.” Hassan Nasrallah brought it up in his speech last night when commenting on the election results and Al of Ex Oriente Lux picks up on this issue. Nasrallah said the opposition probably has the popular vote and that he will leave it to the professionals to figure it out. According to a study cited by al-Akhbar (bottom of the page), the opposition received 54.5% of the popular vote, whereas the ruling coalition received 45.5%. I find it funny that the total adds up to 100%. As far as I know, we have not succumbed to the two-party system yet and there was a visible amount of votes cast for people not running on either lists, especially in Hizballah and Amal’s backyards.

Now I am no professional, but here are the numbers I got when, instead of taking the voters as blocks of with or against, I added the total number of votes cast for the total number of candidates in three categories: opposition 50.4%, ruling coalition 46%, and other 3.6%. I only did the numbers once and I might have missed an affiliated independent or two, but not any with a considerable number of votes attached.

These numbers are, of course, distorted on many levels, one of the main distortions being the opposition within Sunni and Shia turfs. This is particularly significant in majority Shia areas where the ruling coalition presence is weak, the “existential” confrontation is low priority, and the challenge comes from friendly quarters. Such was the case in Baalbak-Hermel and Hasbayya-Marji`yun where opposition competitors received some 10% of the vote.

As Ibrahim al-Amin points out in the al-Akhbar article linked to above, had there been a system of proportional representation, a bloc representing a substantial number of the Shia would most likely emerge. Which is why, all calls to the contrary notwithstanding, Hizballah has no interest in improving Shia representation — and I have posted on this before. That is why I find that Hassan Nasrallah’s passing comment on the popular vote has little to do with rights or justice. I see it instead as a performative utterance that indulges the feelings of underrepresentation that the Shia (rightfully) have and tickles the demographic fear the rest suffer from. All the while papering over the more complex realities that assure the indefinite continuation of the status quo.

As per every nation a government or its political system is it’s back bone, its cornerstone or basically the skeletal system of a nation. But what if that skeletal system already has a fault in it a crack. Basically, that’s me saying that all government’s existing in the world has a fault in it a crack. But for me a true crack is when corruption sinks in to it. Like in my home country the Republic of the Philippines. People always tend to cover up faults and cracks with lies or just like how we call it here “paimbabaw”. Esp now that the election’s closing in. “Corrupts” beautify their name and yet once seated they do absolutely nothing but embezzle the nation’s money. But then again who can blame them. I bet every nation in the world has a one or two officials at the least doing something behind their nation’s back so one can hardly say blame them. But what if that whole skeleton has a fault in it and only has a few good section? That’s a whole different story and that’s when people should actually be acting.

And yet people don’t what they do is whine and whine, complain here and there, and to them that’s what they call picking up arms and act, which is really sad cause that’s just basically just saying something something not exactly acting out. I know it seems I’m being a bit….ermm…..haughty??? Is that it or something as if I’m doing something for my nation well not exactly. But I’ve said to my self that as a first log in this wordpress account I atleast want to say something to the world that what’s there cant exactly be removed…..

But I guess the saddest amongst them all is that a nation focused on it’s skeleton gradually lose it’s focus on itself and its way whether something like is it clean, hygiene or something like that and of all if it is happy and if it loves it self….I know it seems like I’m stating rubbish it’s not like a had a draft.

Like everyone else, I have seen this year’s elaborate electoral programs being waved in opponents’ faces on TV and I have heard candidates calling them “civilized,” but I have not seen them widen the debate. There has been another less advertised move towards issue- rather than identity-politics this year: Lebanese Parliamentary Monitor (LPM). In its “A`mal al-nuwwab” section (from the main menu to the right) you can research MP’s to find out what they have been up to in parliament since 2005. The idea is that as a citizen, I can use this resource to hold politicians accountable for their performance. A wonderful idea, no doubt.

But there is another insidious aspect to this project that turns it into little more than an exercise in futility. The NGO behind the project, “Towards Citizenship” (Nahwa al-muwatiniyah), starts with a mistaken premise: that it is lack of political education and awareness that generates the system we have in Lebanon today. Taking “enlightenment” as a starting point, the NGO has several projects pursuing education, dialogue, and advocacy as means towards convincing Lebanese (with a focus on youth) that citizenship — rather than religion, clan, etc — should be the primary principle of identity in Lebanon.

The envisioned end product — a parliamentary democracy with all its trappings — has yielded positive results in some countries. But to pinpoint ignorance as the root cause of this product’s failure in Lebanon is misguided at best. People I know who make their political decisions based on sect are fully “aware” of what a parliamentary democracy is. Their sectarian politics is a choice and an ordering of priorities, not the result of some false consciousness. Moreover, pursuing the path of “enlightening the masses” dismisses the resilience of sectarian identity as the primary principle of modern identity in Lebanon. Temporally and institutionally, its roots in Lebanon go at least as far back as “citizenship.”

We have seen how political programs were easily transformed in the hands of sectarian politics into a charade of sorts. Any ambitions of moving beyond the stagnant instability of current politics and of taking alternatives beyond a fringe group of dissatisfied members of the middle classes needs to begin by taking sectarian identity seriously rather than relegating it to ignorance or historical residues. Otherwise, we might very well end up with the trappings without the democracy. In the mean time, the LPM is an invaluable source and it remains to be seen whether the statistics will be shaken up over the next four years. I, for one, do not have to make any difficult decisions this Sunday: the results in my electoral district are a foregone conclusion.

* Borrowing “العصفورية المذهبية” from journalist Ali Hamadah and Omar Karami. I am not sure who coined it, but it has a nice ring to it and it evokes the “gilded cage”.