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.