Christmas in China: A Farewell to Childhood

The hardest time of the year to live in China is now, the holiday season. It is the time of year that simply can be enjoyed in the far east. It is quintessentially  western. Whereas strolling on the streets of Paris or attending a church service in London would render the spirits of yore and the tidings of Christmas cheer, a Christmas spent in China feels forced. The few Christmas lights that don the streets are overpowered by the neon signs of blaring Hanyu Characters. The Santa hats worn by hotel attendants and waitresses appear out of place. They are an obvious act of pandering to western expats, and Shenzhen happens to have the largest community of expats of any other city in China. The smooth jazz versions of typical Christmas carols that can be heard in the subway stations are merely background music to the reality that Christmas in China is not really Christmas at all. Really I wish Shenzhen wouldn't even try. This year I am looking forward to New Years Eve more than I am Christmas. But really, the main reason why Christmas eludes me this year isn't the anomaly of Christmas decorations placed along side Duck restaurants and electronics factories. It's the simple lack of the most important element of Christmas, family. This is the first Christmas I am away from home, completely by myself. I will have a party to attend, mostly attended by people I would feel uncomfortable even calling acquaintances, and i will have my girlfriend to spend Christmas day with. But such a dramatic change from my usual Christmas change is a hard pill to take. Usually I spend Christmas with a large family  5 grandparents, 8 grandchildren in all, and several aunts, uncles, and distant relatives. Music would be lively as my Uncle Gary would play Christmas songs on the piano and my Uncle Karlo would play traditional Finnish music on the accordion. My grandmother would proceed to rally the grandchildren in joining in a traditional Finnish dance while one of the older family members would dress as Santa Claus and distribute presents to the grandchildren. These were the things that formed the image of Christmas for me. Now that I am at the opposite side of the earth, the sight of a Christmas tree reveals no magic. All I can see is the plastic reality of a rather odd cultural tradition, what I imagine most Chinese people think when they look upon the same object. But as David Bowie once said "Turn and face the strain. Time may change me but I can't change time." This year has been a year of change for me. I've graduated from college, I'm in a new country, and one of my grandfathers has passed away. In truth, Ive lost a big part of my life up to this point, the excuse of childhood naivety. The Mayan prediction of the end of the world may not have come to pass, but I will say that this year I witnessed the end of my world as I knew it. Christmas is an opportune time to reflect upon your personal experiences of the past year. Perhaps this year, I need to look back further, throughout the entire first segment of my life. In a way, this year's Christmas represents an opportunity to say farewell because as I see it I have reached the future I have been told about for so many years. However, it must be understood in this written catharsis that this year's Christmas shouldn't be seen as funeral of childhood but rather as a baptismal of a new life. I will never be able to return to these days of childhood and college, but at least I can say that they were happy, pleasant, and musical. Most importantly, they were a good foundation for the next segment of my life, one that will pass as well, and probably way too soon. But there is one thing that is certain about my future Christmases. They won't all be without family as is the case with this year. With that I end with this Christmas message. "Through the years we all will be together, if the fates allow. Hang a shining star upon the highest bow, and have yourself a Merry little Christmas now." 

Biking on Paradox Road in China.

It is astounding what one can see in China by riding a bike for three hours. The other day my friend Kevin and I had some free time to kill. We had the day off for our school's sports day., and in the spirit of all things  athletic we decided to take a bike ride around some parts of Song Gang we had not yet had the pleasure to visit. On our way out, we were noticed by our school's security guard. Shanghai is his name. Within a second he asked where we were going. We told him we were going to do some exploring on our bikes and immediately he grabbed his motorcycle and told us to follow him. Without having a proper means to retort we acquiesced, after all he certainly knew the area better then we did. 

Taking a left on Dong Fang Boulevard, we wizzed through the Chinese traffic with an awkward smoothness. Soon we took a right into a neighborhood of factories. Relieved as I was to get off the busy road, nothing seemed different to me. The area we were riding through had a perfunctory atmosphere common to our neighborhood complete with hardware shops, duck restaurants, and factory gates. This swiftly changed as we made our way up a dirt road and into the wilderness, well….at least as much wilderness as you can find in the industrial backwater of the city of Shenzhen. Soon our path became steep and the peddling process became too unbearable. Thus we decided to walk our bikes uphill for a period. 

Soon Kevin and I realized that we were at a high enough elevation to see the wide open scenery of Song Gang. In front of us were sprawling hills obscured by scattered trash fires in the distance. Farther away through the haze, we could see the Tian Hong shopping center jutting out of the clouds of pollution with a persona of subtle mystery. Later we took off downhill along a rode of sharp turns and sleek switchbacks. The ride resembled the scene of Indian Jones running from a colossal rock behind him. With the wind brushing against my face I knew this was going to be a day of adventure. 

At the end of the hill we came across a dusty gravel mine sooting up the air like a sand storm in the Gobi Desert. Shanghai informed us that we would soon be approaching the foot of Song Gang's main reservoir. As we made our way through the lichee orchards, I could see the mighty body of water in the distance. This reservoir, I learned, provided the bulk of Bao'An County's water supply. At this point Shanghai told us to stop and take a rest so we could look at something special. We approached the gate of a complex with loud screeching sounds coming from inside. Upon entering I noticed a racetrack with small racing cars Shanghai referred to as Ke Ling Ches. Shanghai was showing us one of the many leisure activities that are now enjoyed by China's growing Middle Class. Perhaps one day, Nascar might be considered as a Chinese sport. Onwards we biked, passing golf fields and large estates of China's wealthy and prosperous perched on a hill overlooking the reservoir, lichee orchards, and golf greens. Soon we would be going back uphill. 

However, the scenery we were passing began to change dramatically.  On our way up hill we observed a separate part of China. Just up the hill from the playgrounds of the Middle Class and the townhouses of the elite were the dwellings of Chinese forgotten by the China's economic development. These were the peasant class, a class that had been here before the rise of Shenzhen's construction cranes sprouted by capitalist experimentation. They lived in simple huts made out of trash, raw materials, and cloth. These simple hovels had an inherit quality of a mongolian Urk except not nearly as sturdy. China is one of those amazing countries where one can see the lives of its most prominent and desperate citizens within a five minute bike ride of each other. 

After passing the top of the hill, we let gravity pull us downwards with an impressive speed, gliding alongside a massive cemetery on the way down. The cemetery was designed like one of China's leveled fields, nicely engraved on the side of the hill with delicate precision. Taking a sharp right, we made our way down a brick path surrounded by vegetable agriculture fields where we saw China's peasant class hard at work. These were the people celebrated in China's recent past. Now they have been left in the shadows on Shenzhen's great high rises. 

However I will say the beauty of their environment far exceeded that of Shenzhen's finical districts. The shining rays of the sun gave way to sprawling emerald hills and a valley of lined fields with a circumference dotted by banana trees. The area had many of the same features as Vietnam. Of course, this isn't very surprising since South China is geographically and culturally congruent to Vietnam. As we swerved through the narrow jungle roads, Shanghai informed me that people had been living in this area for 6,000 years, and yet the irony of this was that the area is still primarily green space, preserved from the massive industrial growth of Shenzhen's Special Economic Zone, at least for the time being. Eventually we made our way into Phoenix Mountain, a notable public park in Bao'An. There I could see more examples of the Chinese middle class at play. The elderly, middle school students  playing hooky, Chinese yuppies, and Chipsters (Chinese Hispters) all enjoying a day out at the park flying kites, kicking jianzi, or just strolling in the open air. 

After leaving the park, Shanghai took us to something truly special. At the end of the street we stopped at a Pagoda. The six story tower was clearly worn from age as was the attendant inside. After exchanging a few words with her, she agreed to let us explore inside and make our way up the narrow stepping latters that lead to the top. On each floor we could see a small alter, although the religion appeared ambiguous since there were Buddhas, Taoist masters, and figures from Chinese popular religion all included in the displays. At the top floor, I peered outside the window to escape the smell of dust and incense overpowering my head. Outside I could see a McDonalds and Chinese Construction Bank, observing once again another paradox China presents, a mix between the modern and traditional, where globalized fast food chains and temples can be found across the street from each other. We made our way out of the pagoda and felt blessed by the experience. However the most exciting (and dangerous) part of our journey was yet to come. 

Shanghai led us down a road of western fast-food restaurants and shopping complexes and proceeded to turn onto a ramp that converged through the freeway. There we were, a couple of bicycles in the middle of Chinese traffic. At that moment, i possessed a fear I have felt few times in my life. Yet despite the extreme sense of danger I felt, the faces of the pedestrians nearby were ambiguous and at ease. These short cuts were common place here in China, and after all that I had experienced already, I felt compelled to except it. 

Obviously we got back safe, and when I feel up to it, I'm sure I will do it again. If this bike ride taught me anything, it is that China is a nation of many societies. It is a society of factories, a society of golf courses, a society of farmers, a society of work, a society of leisure, a society of industry, a society of nature, and most importantly a society of new and a society of old. It is a country of paradoxes swirling around the buddhist wheel of the universe which contains all things throughout the processes of creation, life, destruction, and rebirth. I have given myself an impossible task in understanding China, for one simply cannot, within a conventional span of a lifetime, attempt to understand China. A friend once told me, if you are in China for three months you feel like you can write a book about it. If you're in China for a year you can find little to say about it. If you have been in China for ten years, you won't have the foggiest idea what China is anymore. I guess my quest is a forever bike ride along Paradox Road. 

2012's Lesson for America

December is a time to reflect upon lessons that can be learned from events that have transpired over the concluding year. In 1945 we witnessed the destructive power of atomic weaponry, and learned that the use of it again for non peaceful reasons must be avoided at all costs. In 1968, we witnessed the Tet Offensive which taught us that American military power is not invincible, even at the hands of an impoverished guerrilla army. In 1973 during the OPEC embargo, we learned that dependence on foreign oil could elicit dangerous blows to our economic strength and stability.  In 2001, following the September 11th attacks, we were presented with the reality of international terrorism, and the tangible threats it can deliver to our nation and the world. 

Yet rarely has America ever been pushed into the flames of reality quite as harshly as the year of 2012. The societal lesson learned this year is a tragic one, a lesson that directly affects families, small communities, and children. The targets of this threat are diverse, numerous,  and unprejudiced. They include schools, churches, malls, and neighborhoods. There is an inherit paradox in this threat, because while the dangers of its use are obvious, proposed political action on the subject has been thwarted by illogical rhetoric of self defense and personal rights. This year, we learned about the dangers of unrestricted firearms.

The events in which we were taught this lesson are disturbingly abundant so for issues of length I will only discuss the most vocal incidents. Murders linked to highly dangerous firearm possessions in the year 2012 started as early as February 26th in Sanford, Florida with the death of Trayvon Martin who was killed by the hand of George Zimmerman, a member of volunteer police enforcement services. This incident was small and seasoned by the media's obsession with race relations in America given the race of the killer (white) and victim (black). Thus the important message in this incident was easily lost by punditry rhetoric and racially divided protests. 

Unlike the cases that were to follow, the perpetrator in this case appears to have shot the victim in a self misguided sense of self defense. Thus, what must be understood here is not the danger of guns themselves but a law relating to gun use in the state of Florida that has been replicated in other states, Stand Your Ground. Stand Your Ground laws give the shooter the benefit of the doubt in the murder of the victim when standing trial. In other words, if the shooter says they killed the victim in an act of self defense, everyone must assume they are correct. 

While the intentions of this law may be commendable, the results lead to an ambiguous legal situation where questions are left unasked. More importantly they relieve pressure on the severity of firearm use thereby reducing the sense of responsibility an individual like Zimmerman would have in possessing and using such a weapon. Of course, the real story in this case was reduced to a white man killing a innocent black youth which lead to even more ridiculous conclusions such as the dangers of wearing "suspicious" hoodies at night. In the midst of the national media circus, Governor Rick Scott, a vigilant supporter of removing responsibility from gun ownership, could easily hide Stand Your Ground in the shadow of race relations. From my perspective, the Trayvon Martin incident morphed into another dramatic media charade like OJ Simpson or Terry Schiavo. In the end it was a case that was completely blown out of proportion. By doing so, public action to repeal Stand Your Ground laws was impaired. Of course, no one was prepared to emotionally deal with the incidents that followed. 

On July 20th, only a few weeks before I would depart for China, the largest mass shooting in US history occurred in an Aurora, Colorado Movie Theatre during the premier of the anticipated movie of the year The Dark Knight Rises. The nation virtually stopped at the news of the massive death brought about by one individual, an act that ended the lives of people of all ages, colors, and creeds. Twelve people were killed and 58 were injured physically, the amount of people mentally injured cannot be measured. What was even more disturbing was the individual suspect responsible, James Eagan Holmes. According to all individuals consulted, Holmes appeared to be a harmless and quiet individual. His academic history would suggest that Holmes had a promising future ahead of him. Prior to the shooting, Holmes was enrolled in a neuroscience program at the University of Denver backed by a prestigious federal grant, and yet he suddenly decided to knock off a movie theatre full of people with two Glocks, a Smith and Wesson MP 15 rifle, and a Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun in a full bullet proof set of body armer worthy of a member of Seal Team 6. Yet the most disturbing feature of this crime is that Holmes was able to acquire all these firearms and an unlimited amount of ammunition from internet purchases, and the government (federal or local) had no file on him. 

Following the incident, the NRA was out in full force to dampen public fears of unrestricted guns going as far as to place the blame solely on violence in movies such as the Dark Knight. The logic of accusing Hollywood entertainment as the cause of this incident makes as much sense as invading Iraq for something that happened in Afghanistan. The real issue here was the complete accessibility any individual has to an unlimited amount of deadly weaponry. If the Feds can track someone's purchases of pharmaceuticals for possible illegal drug distribution, why can't the same be treatment be targeted at another input in the business of crime, firearms? 

Not surprisingly, even given the scale of the Aurora Shootings, the incident fell to the wayside with the impending arrival of the 2012 Presidential Election. But before America could move on beyond Aurora, a shooting at a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin on August 5th which lead to the deaths of six people revived the horrors of the Bat Man Massacre. At this point I was in China, so the details of the incident were not available to me. However, I not only possessed a sense of grief after the incident but a sense of embarrassment witnessing such egregious actions taking place in my country from abroad. 

Then there was the most recent incident which targeted the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society. Following the fatality of 20 school children in the shooting at a rural Connecticut school the past weekend, I have to ask when will it be enough? Maybe the answer is as Bob Dylan said "blowing in the wind," but as of now the metaphor should be replaced with something more applicable and gruesome. The answer is flowing in the blood of the victims, and such answers can't be mopped off the floors of school hallways and vacuumed off movie theaters seats permanently, not even by emptying the lobbying coffers of the entire NRA. As a teacher myself, I know it will be hard to go to class tomorrow in the realization that a third of my class would be eliminated if such an incident were to occur at my school. 

China too is not immune from incidents such as this. Only last week 22 children were injured at a Henan Province school by a mentally unstable man with a knife. But the key to this story is in the words "injured" and "knife." It is illegal to own firearms in China, and I have to say, the realization of such heavy governmental restrictions is comforting when walking the streets at night. It is ironic that I feel a greater sense of freedom to survive when walking the streets of the PRC than I do the USA. Now you can say China too has acts of violence like the Henan incident last week, regardless of strict gun control. But one thing can be said, at least those children will be able to go home and celebrate Spring Festival with their families this year. The same cannot be said for those families in America that will be internally tortured by an empty seat at the table for Christmas dinner, next to the Christmas presents that remain unopened. 

I have no policy prescriptions for gun control. In fact it wasn't a subject I had an interest in until recently. I will say that over the past year, my opinion of how gun control should be approached has evolved. I used to think such subjects should be left to local governments, but given the geographical diversity of the past year's incidents, I now believe gun control must be handled at the federal level. We must face this challenge as a nation because it doesn't affect just certain areas, urban, rural, or suburban. They effect us all.

 We have a moral and patriotic obligation to children, movie goers, religious worshippers, mall shoppers and ourselves to make sure that guns do not only stay out of the hands of those who should not be trusted with them, but that every firearm owner recognizes the true costs of being irresponsible when using their firearm. To put it bluntly, fire ownership is a right not a toy.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I do concede that our founding fathers guaranteed American citizens the right to own firearms. But they were living in a time of muskets and inefficient rifles that took a long period to reload and could only shoot a limited amount of rounds at a time. The founding fathers did not intend for the words of the Constitution to be treated as the Ten Commandments, forever set in stone. They referred to the Constitution as a "Living Document" one that changes with the necessities of the times, and I think they would all agree that given the events of the past year, some drastic changes are needed in America's current policy on guns. 

We are now a nation with a level of gun fatalities that matches Somalia's. This certainly wasn't what the founders intended by a Right to Bare Arms. Furthermore, we must not forget another document written by the founders in which the first lines read "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." In my observation, by taking the liberal view of gun ownership that we currently possess, we have robbed these unalienable rights from so many innocent people, many of which had so much of their life ahead of him. Furthermore, we continue to rob them from so many Americans who are afraid to step outside or send their children to school this week. When measuring the strength of freedom in any given nation, I find the freedom from fear to be a greater indicator of liberty than the freedom to own firearms. As Americans, we have a duty to ensure that the freedom from fear remains strong in our nation, and in so doing so ensure that such violence never happens again. 

Taking Back Socialism: What Socialism Really Means

Chances are, if you bring up the word socialism in a room with ten other people, seven will greet you with destain, two ambivalence, and one, for a lack of a better word, comradeship. It has been twenty years since the end of the Cold War, and yet we still hear about socialist conspiracies to suppress individualism for the sake of equality and political correctness. Over the past four years, a largely moderate and corporatist minded president has been accused of being a socialist radical bent on forcing all Americans to gather under the iron fist of the state in order to be crushed by the economic oppression of healthcare mandates, exercise, energy saving lightbulbs, and broccoli. Former Florida Congressmen Allen West labeled all members of the Progressive Congressional Caucus as card carrying Marxists whose primary objectives included the empowerment of radical teachers unions and undermining the foundations of the great American capitalist enterprise. It's as if you can't be American, or a member of a Democratic society while simultaneously identifying with the moral or economic prescriptions of socialism. 

As I see it, with the recent reelection of the so called Comrade Oba-Mao, its time to put the myths of socialism in America to rest. First, the collectivized definition of all leftists subgroups is incredibly simplistic and misleading. Of course, thats the point of generalization when preforming the act of scapegoating. nonetheless, socialism only can be identified with the regimes of Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Cuba and the like in an economic sense when referring to state planning. Land collectivization, state management of industrial input and output, and the homogeneity of labor compensation were the policies prescribed by a socialist economic system.  This did result in massive starvation, poor work ethic, and political purges. However, what must be understood is that these examples employed an extreme level of socialism known as Communism. Communism, unlike socialism, is not an economic system but a political system of state enforced equality. 

Not all models of socialism are the same as Soviet style Communism. In fact, there are plenty of successful socialist economic models  such as that of Scandinavian countries, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Canada, Costa Rica, and Germany. Germany has one of the strongest economies in the world, top of the line education, and a world class transportation system. While France's economy isn't nearly as successful as Germany's, it's healthcare system is ranked as the worlds best by the World Health Organization. Canada employment rate recovered from the global economic recession faster than any other G7 economy and Canada's national deficit has been decreasing, unlike America's which has remained stagnant. Costa Rica has the highest literacy rate in South America with an average life expectancy of 79 years, partly due to the abolition of the military in 1948. In Sweden, employers not only grant maternal but also paternal leave for families with newborn children.

I must not forget another very important country that has employed socialist policies many times over, the United States. Yes, throughout the 20th Century, America has implemented a range of socialist economic programs such as Social Security the most popular entitlement program amongst Americans which provides citizens with a generous stipend after retirement, the FDIC which insures the security of the bank accounts of every American during a monetary/fiscal crisis, federal highway systems designed and funded by the American government to provide convenient infrastructure to advance business efficiency and safe travel, national landmarks and parklands protected from the purposes of mineral exploitation and reserved for the recreation of American citizens and the preservation of the natural beauty of the American heartland, Medicare another popular entitlement that provides economic aid for the elderly through a system of socialized medicine, and a public education system which provides the important service of preparing the next generation for crafting a better tomorrow for future Americans. In reality, under the recent definition of socialism, America has been a socialist country for the past century. 

Now lets consider the grievances held by the so called patriots defending America from the the dark cloud of socialism. First, the 2010 Healthcare reform act is a socialist law that will erode freedoms that make the American way of life possible. Is healthcare reform socialist? To the extent that it calls for some state involvement in the healthcare industry yes. But the American government already plays a large role in managing utility services, airline travel, pharmaceuticals, and banking. What makes the healthcare industry any different? Furthermore, America has had a socialized medical system since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s, so the idea of America having socialist healthcare system isn't anything new. The bill passed in 2010 provides no government ran healthcare program, not even a public option. In fact, it was originally proposed by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation during the healthcare debate in the 1990s which ended in disaster. Only in a marginal sense is healthcare reform socialist, and Medicare and Medicaid negate the accusation that the 2010 Affordable Care Act has made America more socialist.

Second, Americans are being overtaxed by a socialist president who hates individual ambition. Taxes are lower than they have been since the 1950s. Tax relief for middle class Americans has expanded under President Obama with the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as well as the Payroll Tax Holiday. Under this President, taxes haven't been raised on anyone and deficit reduction proposals have been largely dominated by spending cuts as opposed to tax increases. This is largely due to a vigilant and illogical pledge that was signed by  a majority of Congressional Republicans not to raise taxes on the American people ever. The ability to keep such a promise is akin to being able to remove the threat of terrorism from the world entirely. It simply can't be done, especially in a time of economic weakness and record high deficits. Raising taxes isn't a socialist idea exclusively. In fact, in a Soviet style socialist society, taxes would be irrelevant since the state already owns all means of production, it can't very well tax itself. Taxes are the product of capitalist democracies, not socialist command economies. Even conservative small government crusader President Ronald Reagan believed that the tax code should be progressive and that it was necessary for the wealthy to pay a fair share in order to craft a balanced budget. Following his reelection in 1984, President Reagan called for the closing of "crazy" tax loopholes for wealthy Americans. This is a direct quote from a speech President Reagan gave on the subject,

"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy."

Hearing these words it sounds as if the former president is making a proposal for the Buffet Rule.

Third, this administration has violated the Freedom of Religion in our Constitution due to his secular socialist ideology. In regards to religion criticisms of the president I get confused with the lack of clarity in the narrative. Is Obama a secular heathen or a Muslim extremist? In any case, there has been no attack on the freedom of religion in this country by  secular elements of society, at least not any that are remotely relevant. These accusations have been primarily derived by the president's support of women's health coverage in employer based healthcare insurance, namely birth control pills. Furthermore, for no direct reason, the meager percentage of the federal budget given to Planned Parenthood has also been drawn into the conflict between women's' health converge and religious freedom. I don't see how this has anything to do with an individual's right to worship, but it appears to me that the threat to religious freedom is largely being advanced by social conservatives by scapegoating atheism and Islam as threats to the American way of life. Furthermore, just because their is a right to religious freedom doesn't mean that right should be employed to oppress others who chose to take birth control in order to avoid a number medical conditions, one of which is an unwanted pregnancy. Such an opinion does not represent socialist ideals but democratic ones.

Fourth, Obama is a socialist because he hates the free market. If he believed in the free market he wouldn't chose winners and losers by bailing out GM. First, no nation has a true free capitalist market economy. As I explained before, America has a lot of socialist elements embedded in its societal infrastructure. In reality all countries are mixed economies with some free market elements and some government involvement. Second, simply bailing out companies is not an example of socialism. It is an example of corporatism which is another word for state capitalism, a model currently employed by Japan, Russia, and China. While I have my reservations to corporatism, I will say that the bailout saved millions of jobs that would've been lost in the economic recession which would have certainly led America into a depression. A socialist response would have been to put GM under government control until further notice. Instead the American government continued to allow GM's management to make business decisions without hindrance, although they expected the bailout money to be paid back. This again is not socialism, it is corporatism. 

So what do socialists really believe in? Primarily, socialism is an economic system that perceives government as the most efficient mechanism of ensuring economic fairness by crafting a robust progressive tax system to provide a safe and swift public transport system, a quality primary education system, an affordable and sometimes free secondary education system, and a government healthcare system to insure that the health needs of all citizens are provided for. Socialists believe that economic rights such as right to healthcare, right to work, right to education, and right to housing are just as important as political rights. Socialists believe that a healthy and educated populace will promote overall happiness as well as economic growth. Socialists believe in the public promotion of the arts, for a society without arts would be void of life, color, and creativity.  Socialists believe that certain industries such as agriculture and utilities should receive public subsidies based on the needs of the citizenry. Socialists believe that community responsibility for securing the welfare of children, the poor, the elderly, and the sick is not only ethical but a matter of common sense. In other words, a society is only as strong as those who are left behind and a society will suffer from the blind eye it turns to the downtrodden. This is a concept known as economic security which is at the heart of the socialist mantra. A nation where the individual citizen has no responsibility towards his neighbor is not a nation worth fighting for or believing in. Therefore the socialist message is a patriotic one. But it is also a universal one. After all, the worlds most socialist countries such as Norway and Finland are also the most active in international institutions that fight against global poverty, hunger, and the subjugation of women. 

Often times I wonder what the founding fathers would have thought of the concept of socialism. It was a political theory that developed at least 50 years after their time, and whose to say whether Thomas Paine would've adapted his Pamphlet Common Sense to include some socialist perspectives in his treatise for a new society governed by the people? Whose to say that Ben Franklin, a man who founded civic institutions such as Philadelphia's first post office, fire station, and the infamous Pennsylvania Gasset would have been attracted by socialism's value in community strength through solidarity and action? Whose to say that the secular Thomas Jefferson might have admired socialism's prescription for a firm wall between church and state? Perhaps they would have remained ambiguous on the subject, but keep in mind that these were some of the most progressive and open minded figures of their time and it would be silly to think that they would not have at least given the subject some consideration. In conclusion, Americans shouldn't have to accept socialism as valid, but at least they should try to understand what it is before they sound completely ridiculous. 

The State of the Nation: Fiscal Cliff, Reason, and Leadership

In his fair well address, President Bill Clinton left the American people a blueprint for the 21st century. "Through our last four budgets we've turned record deficits to record surpluses, and we've been able to pay down $600 billion of our national debt--on track to be debt-free by the end of the decade for the first time since 1835. Staying on that course will bring lower interest rates, greater prosperity, and the opportunity to meet our big challenges. If we choose wisely, we can pay down the debt, deal with the retirement of the baby boomers, invest more in our future, and provide tax relief." 

Unfortunately this blueprint was not the option pursued by the succeeding administration. Instead of calling for entitlement reform to preempt the generational crisis about to hit the social security and medicare, President George W Bush ignored Clinton's warning. In one of his first acts as president, George W Bush passed a series of irresponsible and excessive tax cuts for middle class earners and high income earners, the latter of which enjoyed a large majority of these tax benefits. Instead of paying for these tax cuts with spending cuts, the Bush Administration massively increased government spending for the new Homeland Security Department, a revenge turned occupation in Iraq, and an expansion of entitlement spending under Medicare D. 

None of this contributed to significant growth in employment or the economy. Instead the nation plunged into a recession followed by a chilling debt crisis that has frozen the gears of political action within our government. Now we are approaching a breaking point of this political crisis culminating in the infamous Fiscal Cliff. Members of the federal government will be forced to decide between two obligations, political ideology and the American people. Pundits will exchange irrelevant banner over "if" the fiscal cliff will affect the American people. In reality, Americans will be forced to make sacrifices either way in order to pay for a decade of economic fecklessness. 

What must be done first and foremost, is the elimination of the Bush Tax cuts. President Obama's deficit reduction plan calls for Bush era tax cuts to be eliminated for earners making $250,000 or more. This means that the wealthy will still have $250,000 in tax free income. The rest of their income will be taxed by merely 39% as opposed to 35%. Conservative pundits accuse such a proposal as a guaranteed blow to the US economy since it would absorb money from the wealthy that would be used to invest in job creation. But as I see it, if wealthy individuals have enough money to throw several billion dollars into a failed presidential campaign without being even marginally affected, they have enough money to pay an extra 4% on income taxes. 

Tax cuts for the purpose of job creation must be applied as an reward for companies who actually hire in America, not a guaranteed "incentive" for every wealthy individual. What causes job loss in America isn't tax burden but labor costs and tax cuts for the wealthy will not change this trend. Most likely, this extra money acquired from tax cuts will be invested in a new Hummer for junior, a week in Geneva, Switzerland, or a  yacht to sail on Lake Michigan. Sweat shops in Vietnam will continue humming, while  unemployed Americans continue to search for work in vain.  

Estate and Gift Taxes must also return to the 1990s rates. There is no reason why wealthy families should have the right to hoard millions of untaxed dollars while the nation is experiencing a deficit crisis. Such untaxed wealth provides no benefit to economic growth. Cuts to the Estate Tax are the product of an ideological dogma of greed and selfishness. In a time of economic necessity, it is imperative that wealthy Americans pay their fair share, especially in death at which point the have no practical use for such money. 

If Congress wants to design a fair tax code, then the tax in most need of reform is the Capital Gains tax which is currently set at 15%. This is far lower than the average income tax rate. Capital Gains is where the ultra rich acquire the majority of their wealth. This is why Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet pay a lower rate than middle class families do. The low Capital Gains marginal tax rate is the biggest tax exemption in the American tax code, and if Republicans are serious about removing tax loopholes, they should start by raising the Capital Gains tax to 20%. 

However, while tax increases are imperative, they cannot be the exclusive solution. Pragmatic reforms must be made to Medicare, Social Security, and the Military to decrease government spending. Our military budget is due for a cut, perhaps even a buzzed trim. President Obama's "horses and bayonets" line in the 3rd debate captured the reality of military spending. In the 21st century, threats to America are found in small caves in Pakistan and in cyberspace, not in large war rooms of evil empires or in the palace of some well armed autocratic lunatic. 

21st century Military strategy should center around special ops units, cyber security, and drones as opposed to massive military build ups. The beauty of such a strategy is that special ops and cyber security are cheaper, smaller, easier to maintain, and more efficient alternatives. We need subtle warfare, not a broadway musical act with huge cannons, mushroom clouds, and Mr. T holding an AK 47. Furthermore, one valuable benefit from the Iraq War was the creation of counterterrorism units that were designed to deal with asymmetrical threats. Why not use the existing structure created for post-Iraq war combat? Now that military operations have ended in Iraq and are set to end in Afghanistan, its time to start severely depleting the military budget. It's time now to the starve the beast. 

As for entitlements, I believe President Obama should be willing to compromise on pragmatic cuts and reforms but to proceed with caution. Social Security benefits should not be cut, but the age limits must be raised to reflect the current cost of living and life expectancy. Millions of American seniors as well as the far left progressive base will be infuriated with such a compromised decision. But as Americans we must all be willing to sacrifice a few social benefits for the economical and social health of the nation. In order to ensure that these programs are available to future generations, an overhaul is required to adapt America's entitlement system to the 21st century. 

However, while entitlements are in need of reform, cuts to the entitlement structure should not be pursued in a time of economic recovery. That is why President Clinton proposed that they be dealt with sooner rather than later as he left office during the end of a period of prosperity and economic growth. In order to have a strong economic recovery, America needs a healthy Middle Class, and entitlements are the foundation of what makes that possible. In my assessment, the economic recovery will be harmed far more by cuts to entitlements to middle class consumers and small business owners than a modest tax increase for the top 2% of earners in the US. While the goal of this compromise is deficit reduction, Congress must not forget the more important task of economic recovery. Furthermore, I believe this election illustrated that most Americans prefer the Democratic approach to deficit reduction.

Republicans argue that there was no mandate for tax increases following the results of the 2012 election. Such is the condition of living behind the iron curtain of ideology blinded from the realm of reality. House Speaker John Boehner and the Tea Party movement established that the 2012 election would be a mandate on their ideals vs. President Obama's as far back as 2010. The debt crisis during the pst 2 years was avoidable, and it was artificially crafted by an ideological agenda to spark discontent over the fiscal health of the nation. Congressional gridlock illustrated  economic and political weakness in the US to global markets. This perception ultimately lead to our credit downgrade by Standard and Poor's in 2011, not the size of the deficit itself.

From my observation, these past two years of stalemate and bickering over the federal budget deficit were fueled by political motives to ensure a one term Obama presidency. These efforts failed miserably this past November. While Democrats did not win back the House, they retained the Senate, gained in the House, and President Obama was reelected. Despite the "Taxed Enough Already" mantra loudly pontificated by the far right, most Americans recognized that over the past decade, we've had the lowest tax rates since the 1950s, and yet we are in a recession. In the end, sacking public broadcasting, women's health programs, unemployment benefits and placing the bulk of the burden of deficit reduction on entitlements so that the wealthy can continue to enjoy prosperity era tax cuts is not the solution Americans endorsed. Now that the American people have spoken, its time to act. 

As it now stands, President Obama and the Democrats have already won. A year ago, the primary argument was whether tax reform would be considered in the deficit reduction plan at all. Today the argument centers around how revenues will be included, by raising marginal rates or by closing exemptions and loopholes, the latter approach preferred by Republicans. Still despite Republican concessions, the president must not compromise on eliminating Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of earners, even if it means going over the fiscal cliff. Limiting tax exemptions and loopholes alone will not garner enough revenue to meet the president's goal. Furthermore, such a method would put more tax burden on the middle class by eliminating provisions such as the mortgage interest exemption.

Therefore, if another recession is what is needed to tear down the walls of political obstruction in Congress, then for the good of the American people, it must be done. Such a hard decision would show true leadership, which America has witnessed during several previous presidential adminstrations Lincoln, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Reagan to name a few. I am confident the president possesses such leadership capabilities. Nonetheless, I hope that fate does not lead our nation to such an end result. 

The difference between America's China and an American's China

Throughout the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama identified similar villains, among which were the deficit, Syrian President Basher Al-Assad, and China. While the former two are certainly far from benign, I take issue with the third subject. China is frequently targeted as a threat to US economic interests during American election seasons. In the 1992 election Candidate Bill Clinton accused the Bush Sr Administration of being to soft on the human rights violations of who he referred to as "the butchers of Beijing." In the 2000 election, Candidate George W. Bush insisted that the Clinton Administration's definition of China as a "strategic partner" was misguided, suggesting that the term "strategic rival" was more accurate. 

Earlier this fall, Mitt Romney stated that "China has been a currency manipulator for years and years and years. And the president has a regular opportunity to label them as a currency manipulator, but refuses to do so." Romney went on to promise that "On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator." No doubt the statement would have been referred to as Romney's "Guantanamo Promise" had he been elected, but instead of being above the political child splay, President Obama called Romney's bluff. In Mid September, President Obama filed a suit against China in the WTO against illegal subsidies for China's auto industry, no doubt a nod to the auto-labor vote that won President Obama the Great Wall of Midwest Swing states. President Obama also didn't forget to tout his record on pressuring China for currency manipulation. During the second presidential debate, Obama stated that "as far as currency manipulation, the currency has actually gone up 11% since I've been president because we have pushed them hard. And we've put unprecedented trade pressure on China.That's why exports have significantly increased under my presidency." 

As an American who currently works and lives in China, I'm annoyed that the American political system must cater to a misinformed electorate to express US policy on China. True, China is a rival, but it is also a partner. As it is with Republicans and Democrats, China and the US must work together to forge solutions to 21st century challenges. True China may be an idea stealer, but it is not a job stealer. Instead of viewing the violation of intellectual property rights in China with sustain, I choose to look upon it with sympathy and pity. Cheaply manufactured copies of designer clothes, electronics, and apparel reveals China's greatest weakness and America's greatest asset against China's rise, the power of human capital and innovation. The most striking observation I have gathered from teaching my classes is the complete lack of creativity from students. Acquired skill, swift memorization, and community ethic are strong here, but the flame to create flickers in a chamber with an oxygen content similar to the skies of Beijing. 

What bothers me most about China bashing in US politics is the socially constructed image Americans are given of China as a homogenous system where people are akin to parts in a cold and lifeless machine. It is illustrated as a nation with no other objective than the subjugation of the US economy in effort to separate Americans from what is rightfully theirs. 

This image could not be farther from the truth. Yes, China is extremely bureaucratic, hierarchical, and to an extent patriarchal (this is swiftly changing). However, the most beautiful thing about Chinese society is it's disunity and randomness. This quality expresses itself in the anarchy of Chinese traffic which is akin to a scene in a Dr Seuss book where trucks, cars, buses, bikes, cattle, and motor vehicles you never even knew existed collide into a vortex of confusion. It expresses itself in city parks where one can find Chinese citizens at leisure, playing basketball, fishing, skating, playing western and chinese traditional instruments, kicking around a Chinese hacky-sack(jianzi), or a singing in a choir. It expresses itself in the live chickens that can be found in any rural or suburban area freely strutting alongside humans without reason. It expresses itself when a whole restaurant staff dances in unison to Korean pop music to boost employee moral. It  expresses itself in  the group of Foxconn workers getting drunk on a week night at a local restaurant. It expresses itself (unkindly) when your boss calls to tell you that you will be going on a day field trip or be filming a promotion advertisement at the last minute due to the bureaucracy's failure to inform you prior. China isn't as predictable as Americans make it out to be. Any American would be surprised at what can be found here. 

Furthermore the Chinese people in the context of China is unfair to the former, a farce I too have been guilty of. One cannot simply lump 1.8 billion people into some unified object, and it is ludicrous to assume that the motives of growth for the Chinese are anything more than self interested. The Chinese are not out to "steal" American jobs. In reality the Chinese dream and the American dream are similar. The average Chinese citizen wants a safe and healthy working conditions, healthcare, housing, a family and security for that family. Despite the transference of manufacturing jobs from America to China, a large majority of Chinese citizens can't achieve these goals unlike their American counterparts. Most Chinese people I know work every day not expecting a living wage or a vacation with the family to see some of the infinite beautiful places their country has to offer.

The American illustration of such China is void of color and natural beauty. When Americans picture China, they conjure up images of the black skies of Beijing, dark shiny waters polluted by sewage and agricultural runoff, villages pummeled by earthquakes, and perhaps a snapshot picture of the Great Wall. This is a shame. Despite it's numerous environmental disasters, China still has an abundance of natural wonders such as the blue waters of JiuZhaigou, the misty mountains of Guilin, the austere peaks of Huangshan and Taishan, the never-ending majesty of the Tibetan Plateau, the tropical beaches of Hainan, and the roaring waters of the Yangze River to name a few. There is far more to China than its factories. The mountains, rivers, and forests of this country have inspired painters, poets, generals and explorers for centuries. 

Americans see China as a negative subject for the most part. This is largely due to the fear America has for change in the 21s century world order. China has become the second most powerful economic actor in the world. Americans ponder, they don't look like us, and they don't have a democracy, can they be trusted? These feelings are normal, and America has already experienced them with another Asian economic rival during the 1980s, Japan. But we shouldn't let it consume our actions and our words. 

America still is the most powerful military actor and most influential economic actor in the world. Our problems may be numerous, but blaming China will not yield solutions. The solutions come from within our gridlocked government, slowly recovering economy, and the ingenuity of pour people. China to has its problems, corruption, environmental degradation (the results of a growing economy), vast income inequality, a housing market bubble, and on top of that slowing economic growth. These are challenges that the new leaders of China must and will confront. 

Two weeks ago, China had it's own election which yielded the first transfer of power in ten years. During the 18th People's Congress, Xi Jing Ping was elected as president and Li Keqiang was elected as Premier. During his acceptance speech, President Xi pontificated China's contributions to mankind and the integrity of the Chinese people. Towards the end of his speech, Xi stated "China needs to learn more about the world, and the world also needs to learn more about China." These words give me hope that common ground can be forged between our two countries.In the end, all that really separates us is the Pacific Ocean. 

Why Myanmar Matters

The Middle East is once again in flames this week as Hamas and Israeli authorities continue to exchange fire in the Gaza Strip and Syria remains unstable. Additionally, a partisan storm is forming in Washington over the poor handling of the Benghazi attacks, resulting in the death of 9 Americans. GOP senators John Mccain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have initiated a political vendetta against UN ambassador Susan Rice regarding the Benghazi intelligence failure, vowing to block her nomination as the Secretary of State. President Obama has considered Rice for the position but hasn't made a finalized decision at this point. The debacle has been further complicated by the marital scandal of former FBI chief Gen. David Petraeus.  

In the midst of this calamity, several observers find i difficult to understand why President Obama has chosen to visit Southeast Asia, including Myanmar, the mysterious closed society that has recently opened the doors to Democracy after 50 years of military dictatorship. Americans still do not realize the importance of this area of the world for American geopolitical strategy. This sobering fact is largely the result of a lack of education provided by a disinterested media and a mostly silent commander in chief. Both accounts are disheartening. When I watched the last presidential debate on foreign policy, I was taken aback by the lack of discussion regarding regional security, military/ navy strategy, and soft power projections in the Asia Pacific. In my observation, this was one of the areas the Obama Administration preformed best on. 

During the Bush years, the Asia Pacific remains largely ignored by the US Government. President Bush's foreign policy focused primarily on the Middle East, while Asia was considered a second front for the War on Terrorism in areas such as the Malacca Straights which has suffered numerous pirate attacks and the southern Philippines stilled plagued by the terrorist network Abu Sayyaf. The Southeast Asian regional organization ASEAN was demised by President Bush as a "talk fest" and the policy adopted for Myanmar was strict economic sanctions and isolation without communication. The result was a diplomatic shift towards China from the nations of Southeast Asia. China appeared more diplomatic in the South China Sea, and showered countries such as Cambodia with interest free loans and infrastructure investment. State owned Chinese power companies liberally invested in hydroelectric dams in Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia. The business community in Thailand is mostly made up of overseas Chinese immigrants which were eager to extend ties to the mainland to garner investment in Thai as well as Malaysian, Vietnamese, and Indonesian industries. 

However, starting in 2010, disputes began to break out once again over the South China between China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Chinese dams were met with animosity held by local Laotians and Burmese who witnessed the destructive results that leveled their villages and agriculture lands. 

In the midst of this tide of uncertainty in regards to Southeast Asia's benevolent neighbor to the north, the Obama Administration saw an opportunity to reverse these trends that resulted in a near decade of American neglect. Now 2,500 marines have been stationed in Darwin, Australia, US air craft carriers are now stationed in Singapore, and military exercises are annually conducted with Vietnam and the Philippines. In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the 17th ASEAN summit and announced the US is "Back in Asia." Soon after, the US signed ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and submitted an official ambassador to ASEAN. 

Around this time, Myanmar experienced changes of its own. In November of 2010, world renowned Burmese Democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi was released after seven and a half years under house arrest. Following her release, Suu Kyi encouraged the international community to show more flexibility on the sanctions imposed upon Myanmar. Since then under the leadership of President Thein Sein, Myanmar has undertaken a number of reforms such as expanding the freedom of the press and releasing hundreds of political prisoners. Additionally, on April 1st, 2012 Myanmar held its first open elections in over a half a century in which Aung Suu Kyi was elected to the lower house of parliament under the Union Solidarity and Development Party. In response, the Obama Administration has gradually rolled back sanctions on Myanmar, and Suu Kyi was congratulated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her visit to Myanmar earlier his year. 

A reverse in Myanmar's shift towards China has also followed these reforms. Taking into consideration negative public opinion, President Thein Sein temporarily suspended the Myitsone Dam which was to be built on the Irawaddy River near the Chinese boarder. The dam was funded by a Chinese state owned company called China Power Investment Corporation which was to hold 70 percent of the profits. The dam would have provided an estimated 3,600 to 6,000 megawatts of electricity to Yunnan Province most likely the city of Kunming. For China this is bad sign. It reflects the fear Southeast Asian nations have regarding their weak geopolitical position in relation to a rising China. Such fear yields encouragement from Southeast nations for a larger American role in the Asia Pacific.  

President Obama has made his best efforts to capitalize on these fears, and it appears to be reversing the influence the US had lost under the Bush Administration in this vital region of the world. During his speech at Rangoon University, President Obama used this opportunity as the first US President to visit Myanmar to help foster this strategic shift in the Asia Pacific towards America's favor. His words were pragmatically employed in effort to encourage reforms and suggest benefits for doing so. 

Taken from the Diplomat Magazine:

“I recognize that this is just the first steps on what will be a long journey,” the U.S. president said alongside his Burmese counterpart, Thein Sein, at the former parliament in Rangoon. “But we think that a process of democratic reform and economic reform in Myanmar … can lead to incredible development opportunities here.”

In my observation President Obama's recent trip to Myanmar represents a Reagan moment of his presidency. While Ronald Reagan was known for being bold, his strong words pontificating the destruction of the Berlin Wall were a strategic response to observed shifts in Eastern Europe and the greater Soviet Union.

Today a similar shift is occurring in the Asia Pacific. While many Americans still believe that the Middle East and Israel's sovereignty should be our number one foreign policy objectives, I see such a direction as nostalgic and senseless. America's involvement in the Middle East has been a mistake and under Obama our domestic energy supply has expanded to the point that the region's geopolitical value is minimal. Our goal in the Middle East should be stability and nothing more. Policies shaped to expand democracy in the Middle East by military means  has depleted that ability to preserve peace. The more involvement America undertakes in the Middle East, the more trapped we will become by our own geopolitical folly.

In Myanmar on the other hand, our crusade for global democracy is already being won. Sanctions and regional pressures from Myanmar's neighbors brought about this change, not military presence. To fail to recognize this accomplishment would be to miss out on a historic opportunity to regain influence in a region of the world that does matter to the economic and maritime security of the US. Furthermore, to ignore Myanmar at this point would be to ignore the beginning of a successful transition towards a regime that reflects American values in democracy and human rights.

 In recognizing the geopolitical necessity of the Asia Pacific by making Southeast Asia his first foreign visit after reelection, I believe President Obama has proven himself to be one America's greatest presidential diplomats, and an exemplary commander in chief. Following his presidency, Barack Obama will surely join the ranks of other presidential diplomats such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. One thing's for sure, he won't be wallowing in the shadows of a political tragedy at some dusty ranch in Texas. 

What was the 2012 election really about?---Proposals of Smart Governance

     I was a Sesame Street fan when I was a kid. I still believe the messages of sharing, friendship, manners espoused by the children's television program are still valuable to this day, and it's hard to believe they were all brought to you by the letter "L". As adults, we all know of course this is not the case. Sesame street like many other educational programs on Public Broadcasting are bright to you by government funding from taxpayer dollars. As are many other services. 

    In the first presidential debate, we heard a few off handed comments concerning PBS and Big Bird that have been animatedly over exaggerated by both political campaigns and the blogosphere. In doing so the media has lost the central argument behind the infamous Kill Big Bird comment. In fact, I think the comment itself encompasses the central issue in this election. While polling and the media would have you believe that the economy is the #1 issue, and it is certainly important, I find that the difference in policy prescriptions between the two candidates actually direct themselves to another argument that has raged since this nation's origins, of which the economy is effected by. 

     What is in question in the election of 2012 is the central role of government in society. What is government's purpose?What are government's appropriate responsibilities? And not whether big government is good or bad but rather what constitutes as big government? We can hear a lot of rhetoric coming  from the Republican Party regarding their self proclaimed status as the party of small government. But frankly, the idea is ludicrous. After all, the Patriot Act, The War on Drugs, and Medicare D were all brought to you by the party "R". Several individuals in this country perceive the Defense of Marriage Act, Pro Life policies, and the recent wave of election laws sweeping Republican ruled states as examples of an abuse of government power to fit the ideology of some at the expense of the rights of others. It makes perfect sense that in recent years, movements such as the Tea Party and the Ron Paul campaign would seek to remove the current Republican establishment and supplant it with something more libertarian. 

     I personally find both alternatives unappealing. In recent years we have witnessed societal instability due to bank failures, economic crisis, and deficits. But what has been accused as the cause? Within the past 4 years, aggression has been targeted on government expenditures, and a specific few, the small proportion of expenditures employed to provide investment in public welfare and education as well as safety nets for those Americans who cannot help themselves in a time of economic turmoil. On the other hand, for over decade now outrageous tax cuts for the wealthy have been left unaltered. I recognize that the public has a narrow sense of recent history and is easily forgetful, but it is helpful to remind Americans that it was these tax cuts that sprouted the current deficit in the first place.

    But nonetheless, a slight majority of Americans believe the deficit can be solved without altering Social Security and Medicare or dramatically decreasing the bloated size of our military budget and by cutting taxes as well. It is simple as one, two, three, get rid of Obamacare, PBS/NPR, and Planned Parenthood.  This solution will provide o progress. Getting rid of a deficit this size isn't easy, it requires sacrifices from everyone. It requires higher taxes for both the Upper and Middle Classes, it requires massive cuts in the military, and a complete reform of our nation' entitlement system. But instead of a united effort, we have only heard calls for a solution through separation. In fact, the very idea of creating a better community through a united effort has been incorrectly labeled as socialism. 

    While public sector pensions, unemployment benefits, and public broadcasting have been marketed as excess, mass consumerism, tax cuts, and and petroleum subsidies have been defined as the elements of progress. As a nation we must recognize that we cannot buy ourselves out of a crisis by the "virtues" of greed and self interest. 

     What really is the goal here in taking this approach to government? In my observation, it is a fundamental demolition of our system of governance, and a complete disintegration of our cohesion as a union. If I were a public official I would certainly be loathed for admitting this, but this country needs government. I trust a publicly elected body to make decisions on public welfare, education, and civic infrastructure far more than I do a group of shareholders primarily concerned with an efficiency that must result in maximum net profits as opposed to maximum public good. This doesn't make me a  socialist, a communist, or even a progressive. 

    I think this makes me a citizen. PBS, NPR. Food stamps, and Medicaid funded by taxation all provide a sense of duty to our nation no less important than military service or the purchase of war bonds. It provides a mechanism for citizenship and community, which is the primary element of a nation-state and humanity in general. What does it mean to be a people? A number of suburban units only concerned with their purchased property? That merely surmounts to animal nature apparent within any other grouping multi cellular organisms. Even Adam Smith admitted that a nation made up of only shop keepers would fail to succeed. 

     As humans we are inherently political, and desire the exchange of ideas in public life, and the security that government provides. In the modern world, threats are more fluid and global as well as local. If anything, government should be made more efficient as opposed to smaller. Conservatives will argue that all a government requires in this regard is basic police enforcement and a military. But such precautions only cover a limited amount of threats. Hunger, desperation, economic oppression, and ignorance are equally dangerous since they are internal rather than external. They are harder to recognize and easier to dismiss. Without the sense of union and community that government provides the result is separation and a boiling distrust and hatred for the other side. 

     This a nation does not make. From the civil war, to the workers riots of the 1910s-1930s, to the violence that erupted from the civil rights movement, history has taught us that if  government fails to intervene in preventing injustice, civil disobedience is forsaken for anarchy. As for education, a democracy cannot function without an educated polis. PBS, NPR and yes Big Bird all contribute to public education as well as community cohesion. I firmly believe that President Obama approaches the the role of government pragmatically in effort to provide unity and enforce community ethics we all hold as Americans. No one should be denied the right to succeed because college is too expensive or because they cannot afford their medical bills. This is the audacity the president alludes to in his speeches and ideals. It is not a desire to impose big government but rather smart governance. Smart governance is government that knows when to intervene for the sake of protection of its citizens, and when to abstain from involvement for the sake of the civil rights of it's citizens. 

Proposals of Smart Governance:

     Government must respond to the past decades of greed and recklessness in the banking sector by imposing new laws and restrictions. Government must respond to the challenges of environmental destruction by removing subsidies for all energy industries and imposing carbon taxes on gasoline and coal to encourage the use of cleaner energy sources. Government must respond to the poor performance of US primary education scores on international assessment tests by investing in skilled teachers, encouraging study of foreign languages, expanding the role of the arts, and most importantly fostering in our public schools what makes America so great; the free exchange of ideas which will lead to creativity and ingenuity. Government must respond to the growing mountains of student debt that separate young Americans from joining the ranks of the Middle Class by providing more grants and lowering the interest rates of student Pell and Stafford loans. Government must respond to the decadence of our national healthcare system by crafting a national plan that pools America's citizens into an insurance community so that those who need insurance most are not denied coverage. Government should also encourage preemptive healthcare by providing parks for recreation, personal fitness programs in our schools to avoid obesity, and healthier food initiatives such as Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign. Government must respond to the coming entitlements crisis by crafting a solution that will require equitable sacrifices from all citizens young and old, and Americans have certainly proven able to do so in the past. Government must respond to the immigration crisis this country faces by employing humility and understanding as opposed to vigilance and wrath. Government must respond to the wave of Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans coming home to a slim jobs market with devastating health problems by insuring they receive the best publicly funded care and, if needed, publicly funded secondary education to pursue the career of their choice. The government must respond to the challenges of an increasingly uncertain Middle East, unstable Euro Zone, offensive Russia, and influential East Asia by employing our armed forces pragmatically rather than liberally and expanding our soft power through aid, diplomacy, and trust as opposed to force and paranoia. 

        Government must not be used as a tool for religious persecution and cultural purity. Government must not be used as a reactionary cog in a clock that turns back time. Government must not be used to promote the sale of prescription drugs while simultaneously suppressing the use of natural and cheaper alternatives. Government must not be used to define abstract concepts such as marriage and God. Government must not be used as a tool to prevent the participation of minorities and the poor in the political process in the name of preventing so called voter fraud. Government must not be used to define how someone can use and understand their body be they male or female. Government must not be used to invade other nations without reason or moderation. Government mud not approach statecraft with the maturity of a school yard bully. Most importantly, government should not be used as a scalpel to separate us as partisans, muslims, atheists, christians, aliens, 47 percent free loaders, or 1 percent snobs. It should be used as forum to unite us as citizens and as Americans. 

    As a result, America will continue to provide more opportunity than any nation on the planet because we dare to believe in a society where everyone benefits through the creativity and ingenuity of our citizens. We can build a nation that continues to rival all others if we invest in long term solutions to combat present challenges. Taxpayer spending in public education and general welfare contribute to this brighter future, and as a member of the current generation of youth I can safely say we have more to lose than most in this election. We lose our right to the pursuit of happiness once we ignore our duty as citizens to preserve that pursuit for all Americans.  So think twice before you vote to kill Big Bird. As Thomas Jefferson once said "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." 

2012 election review

  Well it's finally over. The 7 month political menstruation period which occurs every four years we call the presidential election will not hover over the American citizenry like a screeching harpy again until 2016. Of course, the media will continue to obsess over the possible list of candidates for 2016, but such foresight only serves as poor substitute for sensational media dope the American punditry has been smoking over the past year. In reality, the only subjects worth discussion are those observed through hindsight. What did Tuesday mean for the Democrats and for the Republicans, and what does it reflect upon the current and future American electorate? 

     At this point, Democrats should be elated that a new American electorate is shifting in favor of a center left majority coalition. Women, African Americans, Hispanics, and the Youth vote were clearly the winning strategy for President Obama and Democrats in the Senate during this election. The former white male majority who voted consistently Republican in this election, with a significant margin favoring Mitt Romney at 52%-45%, failed to bring Mitt Romney to the White House. Hispanics are now a Democratic voting block, which provided blue victories in Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. Furthermore, demographic shifts in the southwest should improve the chances for Democrats to take Arizona and Texas in future presidential elections, thereby robbing Republicans of their electoral foundation. 

     Democrats need to reflect upon this victory, and materialize the values Hispanic voters supported them on in the form of policy. As healthcare was in his first term, President Obama must make comprehensive immigration reform the primary goal in his second term, thereby crystalizing Hispanic support for Democrats for a generation to come. Women will continue to be a valuable component in the coalition as long as Republicans continue to support a medieval approach to women's reproductive rights and employment opportunity. The binder of women ended up slapping the Republican Party in the face during the 2012 election. 

       As for the young vote, these past two elections cannot be simply discounted as a two time blip concerning the trend of support Democrats receive from younger voters. Younger voters participated in 2012 election with the same level of enthusiasm as they did in the last election. The youth of 2012 generally care more about politics than generations before them disenchanted by the world of politics due to the turbulent Vietnam-Watergate era. Young voters are morally and politically invested in such issues as women's rights, marriage equality, job growth, and Climate Change, and they are far more likely to be liberal than conservative concerning these subjects. Young voters are not as likely to take part in a religious institution and are more apt to follow a personal spiritual journey. Furthermore, it is evident from the high support Obama received among 24-40 year olds that age did not make this generation more conservative been 2008-2012 despite the disappointments many of them had with Obama's first term. Therefore, the liberal social trends of the current generation are likely to continue as this generation gets older. 

     Social Conservatives should be the most alarmed by this past election. Minnesota's anti-marriage equality initiative failed as did the pro-life referendum in Florida to ban the use of public revenue to pay for abortion. At the same time, a sweep of gay marriage referendums passed in three states, Maryland, Maine, and Washington. Additionally Marijuana Legalization passed in Colorado and Washington. Tuesday represented a nationwide rejection of the social conservative platform, a strong message that would behoove the Republican Party to take into consideration. Social conservatives are slowly becoming a retirement home waiting to join that big evangelical breakfast buffet in the sky. For the survival of the Republican Party, it is essential that conservatives reflect upon the last election. 

     A large portion of young conservatives, while no fan of Obama, recognize Climate Change, and are socially liberal. In the eyes of young conservatives, who identify with libertarians as opposed to Republicans, the social conservative agenda and the Obama Administration are both fruits from the same sinful tree of Big Government. For young conservatives, Mitt Romney can only serve as a somewhat less terrible alternative to Obama as opposed to an inspiring statesman like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. Therefore, its easy to see why young voters overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats. Social Conservatives also helped to tip the women's vote in favor of Obama with outrageous statements from Senate candidates such as Todd Akin and Richard Murdock. The Republican Party must dump the pro life movement's crusade to reverse Roe vs Wade if it wants to win the support of female voters. Of course, such a change in mindset is nearly impossible for those who think through the lenses of a  1952 social construct. With hispanics, the rift with the Republican party is still repairable, but it will require a good portion of congressional Republicans to come on board with a compromised immigration reform bill that includes amnesty. 

     The worst possible strategy the Republicans can make is the one employed over the past two years; obstruction and ideological extremism. According to several conservative pundits, President Obama's reelection is the result of a double conspiracy ignited by the media and Hurricane Sandy, which leads me to believe that Republicans have not learned their lesson. Unlike what Republicans predicted, their was no big victory that would spark the 2nd American conservative renaissance in 2013. In fact, it was one big sweep for the more moderate and compromising Democrats who not only took every swing state and retained the majority in the Senate but gained seats in the currently GOP controlled House. There was a mandate in this election, a mandate for compromise, and a mandate for a more moderate Republican Party.

      In my assessment, Obama will be far more assertive in pushing his agenda during his second term. An obstructionist GOP will be unable to hold back President Obama as effectively as they have the past two years, and the image of the white aging party of NO will continue to saturate the Republican brand if they chose to continue to do so. This will erode the GOP's ability to hold on to the House and 2014 and will make it certain that a Democratic president will succeed President Obama in 2016, especially if Hillary Clinton runs. 

     On CNN, former Utah Governor John Huntsmen provided the best critique for his party that I have heard during the post election analysis. Huntsmen submitted that the party must refocus its efforts on promoting solutions for the 21st Century rather than lecturing Americans about moral purity and so called shared values. This is not a country where ideas and culture are homogenous. To express such a fallacy is equivalent to a concession to failure, and that's what this election meant for the Republican Party. All the Super PAC money, Karl Roves, and Sheldon Adlesons can't erase that reality. The people have spoken, and they have called for change. Change in government, and change within the Republican Party.