Posted on by WanderingNation

A Criticism of the Presidency:

Representation

A Criticism of the Presidency:

Representation

              An oft levied and completely factual criticism of the presidency has been in reference to the individual in the office. This argument has been accurate for a long time. And, even if it had never been accurate, and each single president had been a Just president, the criticism that I have of the presidency would still be valid. This argument is based on the premise that no person, no matter their intentions or the office they hold, has the ability or right to make a decision that will affect another person negatively (or even positively), as defined by that person’s own subjective emphasis on what is positive and negative.

              While the individual who holds office is important and has impact on our lives, that is only true out of an outdated idea of the correct form of government. That idea is that it is possible for an individual, in an office that has direct impact on 328 million people, can in any meaningful (or even meaningless) way have knowledge of what decision will have the most positive impact on all of those people. No matter if even, somehow, 99.9% of those 328 million were positively affected, there would be over 3 million people who were harmed. One is too many.

               So how do we do this? In a logically sound world, the premise above means that there should be no individual who has any authority over another. It is a rare sight indeed, when something created on paper can be implemented into our day to day lives. What is needed is not some state of complete anarchy, but a separation. What is necessary is for our republic to separate into individual states (countries), while maintaining peace, and allowing for the interdependence of each individual state to be left to the individual states themselves – for a mutual agreement, as between sovereign nations.

              If peace under this system can be maintained and even strengthened, then it should, in line with the argument made earlier, be that the negative impact of rulers can be reduced from impacting 328 million human souls down to the individual number of every state. It is not a removal of injustice, nor should it be considered the end state, only a step towards the further reduction of injustice.

              Self-determination, at its base, is the most fundamental right of each human being on this planet – to make decisions in their own self-interests, and for whatever ends they please. This is a frightening right, as it allows for those near and around us, those filled with ill-intent, to make their wills infringe on ours. This is necessary, for nothing has ever been worthwhile when earned without a struggle. Self-determination is synonymous with struggle, earning its place as the most fundamental human right. To struggle is not to be isolated. When we bring our self-determined selves together, through a synchronicity of will, we achieve a higher purpose. Having someone, or a group of people infringe upon that right, especially when they believe they are doing what is the interests of those they will decide about, is the ultimate perversion of human will.

Reducing the say one has over another, in any form or fashion, is a step that should be taken if one ever tries to reduce the injustice in the world.

Posted on by WanderingNation

The Necessity of Extremism

Honesty is frightening. Honesty with ourselves, and with others, is an extremely frightening thing. When we are radically honest, we often come to conclusions that we hold to be true that frighten us. These frightening conclusions are not something widely accepted, especially in today’s political climate. The most extreme we are allowed to be is which dementia ridden sex offender we will vote for, because voting for a socialist, or an anarchist, or a libertarian is just too damn much.

If we do not allow ourselves to engage in this radical honesty, change will never be enacted. The status quo will never change, and the theft of wealth, sanity, free time, the environment and our lives at large will never stop. Yet it is no surprise that we do not engage in this honesty. Our friendships, our reputations, our social circles, our livings and our very role in the society to which we belong depend on us fitting our opinions into a nice, neat little box that can be summed up in nice, neat little political slogans.

Speaking from a personal place, my politics, ideas, beliefs and spirituality are the farthest thing from being able to fit into a nice, neat little box. This is so with many of the people in my life as well, and I would imagine that it is quite the same for many of the people that are not in my life. For a person to truly be a complete human being, will be clashes inside of us. But our current political system does not allow for idiosyncrasies. It does not allow for quirks, or unlikely coalitions. It does not allow for oxymorons, confusion or internal conflict. And it certainly does not allow an upsetting of the status quo.

Rigorous and radical honesty will inevitably lead to the conclusion that the status quo is not sustainable. It is not honest, healthy, beneficial or good for the average person. And a corrupt and unsustainable status quo needs, more desperately than anything else, is extremists, of all shapes, colors, creeds and contradictions, working together.

Posted on by WanderingNation

In Service to What?

We spend much of our lives figuring out what we work for and what works for us. It is in my humble opinion that we have gone drastically astray in this pursuit.

All creations of Mankind should be in service to Mankind, and Mankind itself should be in service to our Creator.

What have we learned from this quarantine? One of the most poignant things that I think has come from this quarantine is not what we have learned, but what we have been forced to confront – we have known it to be true for a long time. Longer than we would like to admit.

We have been forced to confront the truth that one of the most powerful things that Mankind created – the common man – has been usurped, and does not work for us, but now works against us.

The Economy.

It is written like this because it has taken on the role of some sort of sick deity. It is said with the same gravitas and power as God. We expect it to take lives, in some sort of sick sacrificial ritual, not unlike the rituals in the Old Testament. We need to sacrifice our elderly and sick to the Invisible Hand of the Economy. Instead of sacrificing a goat, we are now expected to sacrifice our grandmothers, our grandfathers and our infirm.

With the modern sacrifice, however, the entity that reaps the reward has changed, just as the sacrifice has changed. Now, when we are expected to sacrifice not only our health, but our leisure, sanity and financial stability, the sacrificial smoke does not go up to the sky, but into the pockets of the rich. To the billionaires, the multi-millionaires and the politicians that they have in their pockets.

The economy is meant to be in the service of the common man and woman – the nurse, the landscaper, the mechanic and the teacher. It should not be in service to the shareholder, the CEO, the Wall-Street broker and the members of Congress, emboldening them to further and more heinous theft. And that is what they do – theft from the average worker, and from the working poor. Turning more and more into dependents, unable to take care of themselves, spending all their time fattening the pockets of others while their pockets grow ever lighter. Congress women and men, bought off by the oligarchs, taking power and independence away from subdivisions, inner city apartments and trailer parks, all the while consolidating it into mansions, high-rises and gated communities.

We have been forced to confront this fact that has been true far longer than just this quarantine. The only question left to us is – do we let this ever-cascading erosion of our health, wealth and sanity mount, or do we take it back? It needs to be taken back. We cannot ask for it, plead and beg for it, or hope for it to come back. That has failed time and time again. We must take it.

Posted on by WanderingNation

Easter in Quarantine

              As we find ourselves in increasingly isolated times, self-imposed though they may be, I think many of us have found more time on our hands than we ever thought we would have. We begged and pleaded for it, whether to sleep, read, make it to the gym, cook healthy meals, read the bible more than three times a year (maybe that one is just me), or whatever it may have been. And now that we have it, it seems we don’t know to do with our most requested gift.

              As we burrow deeper and deeper into our quarantine caves (at least that’s what my apartment has become), I hope that we have found some time to burrow deeper into ourselves as well. When we go about our day to day life, we find ourselves immersed in events, some of which are trivial, some of which are important and some of which fall in between. These events, and the ubiquity of people around us, we find time for introspection to be very limited, if something that happens at all. When we do have some alone time, whether it be a commute, a few moments in the bathroom after taking the morning shower, watching the coffee percolate, or whatever may have you, those moments are often so rare that we take them as a release valve, as a moment to decompress and not think. With weeks of decompression now underway, and weeks more seeming to loom ahead, perhaps it is time that we again think.

              One of the things that I think many of us will be thinking about during this time of the year is Easter – whatever Easter may mean to you. Whether it means the resurrection of Christ, a day where you get some delicious chocolate, a day where a majority group of American culture celebrates their religious holiday while your religious holidays constantly get overshadowed and ignored, or simply another Sunday, it can be a time for us to look inward.

              When I think about this Sunday, Easter Sunday, I think about the story of a man who was resurrected. A man who was not only resurrected, but a man who is purported to have given our souls eternal freedom. If that sounds like something that is way too good to be true, don’t worry. I think the same thing every single time that that idea pops up in conversation or finds its way into my thoughts. I feel like it is selfish to hope for something after this, when I am already so incredibly lucky, so unbelievably fortunate, to find myself where I am today. Adopted, sober, brother to two wonderful sisters and son to two incredible parents, boyfriend of a woman who loves me; it seems like the most incredibly self-conceited and selfish thing to believe that there is a place, far outside my understanding, that is even better than what I have now.

              And that leads me back to introspection, to quarantine as a place to find that time to delve into our own inner cave. Perhaps I need to find the spot inside of me that makes me think that it is selfish to hope for something after this. I do not think of eternal life as hopeful, or idealistic (in the positive sense of that word), realistic, inevitable, or anything else. I think of it as selfish, and I am confident that there is a reason for that. When you think of a place after this one, a place where we are one with our idea of a Deity, of God, I am sure that there is a thought that jumps to your mind before any other. And there is a reason for that, just like there is a reason for my thought.

              Perhaps, as Easter Sunday finds its way into our homes, and we find ourselves with another day to think, this season of contemplation can become a time to discover what your reaction to eternal life represents.

Posted on by WanderingNation

The New American Republic

Abolish the concept of “one” central ruler. One of the main worries of George Washington was that the presidency would become too much like a monarchy, and it seems his worries were proved, at least partially, true. With the willful abdication of power by Congress and the Senate, placing a massive weight of influence on the Office of the President and the Supreme Court, the United States is much closer to a monarchy today than it was just after declaring her freedom from one.

There needs to be a balance of power – some of it needs to be in the hands of the people, but there cannot be too much. Just as there has been an abdication of power by congress and the senate, we can see the origination of this relinquishment of control in the voting public. Often by no fault of their own, the common voter has been manipulated, swindled, bribed and beaten into certain voting patterns by wealthy individuals and organizations. In today’s economy and world, these “wealthy individuals and organizations” are mainly comprised of corporations, both domestic and international. This is an indictment on the whole of our Republic, and it encourages us to re-imagine what the ideal form of government should be. It has been proven, from Rome to the U.S.A., that a Republic inevitably crumbles into an oligarchy. Direct democracy is simply mob rule, which is the quickest way to oppress any form of minority, from gender, religion, ethnicity or any other demarcation. A balance must be struck between the rule of the many and the rule of the competent. The Founding Fathers attempted to do this, but they did not foresee the devolution into corporatism, nor can they be blamed for this lack of foresight.

A separation from political parties and blind adherence to a singular economic strategy is a necessity. Neither Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Feudalism nor any other economic system is capable of adequacy in a world with over 7 billion people and with pervasive globalization. A truly modern state is one that would implement the best of all economic systems, with the only requisite of implementation being that it provides the most benefit to her citizens, with no partiality based on dogma. On top of this, it is blindingly obvious to any modern American that there needs to be a remedy to the two-party system. It would be beneficial to keep in place the idea that all citizens have the right to hold office. At the same time, there needs to be an implementation of a competency check. If a surgeon is required to be licensed in order to have power over an individual’s life within the operating room, should not a politician be credentialed before being to have over the lives of hundreds of millions?

Those who are too poor to take care of themselves need a robust social safety net. Whether this be the infirm, the elderly, children, or those who are mentally and/or physically ill, no one should live in poverty. This will come at the cost of the rich. A progressive income tax needs to be put in place, targeting ultrawealthy individuals, but more importantly, targeting ultra-powerful and wealthy corporations. America has become strangled by corporate power, resulting in myriad injustices. Wealth is not inherently evil, but it becomes so when glorified and placed above the health of those without it. Wealth is a tool to achieve a goal, it is not a goal in and of itself. At least, it should not be.

We must eschew the pursuit of happiness and instead pursue contentment, for our contentment has been stolen from us. The growth and plenty that defined the American Dream has been destroyed by those that were blinded by the benefits of their actions, failing to see the consequences of those same said actions. Happiness is inherently frivolous and fleeting, based on any number of changing desires. Contentment is purchased by the sweat of the brow, while happiness is bought by the desires of the loins, the stomach and a desire to keep apathy at bay.

Our new American Republic must be planted in the soil that our forefathers cultivated, along with the root and trunks they so painstakingly nurtured. We must trim the frivolous, bigoted and antiquated branches from it, and water it with new ideas that have sprung from technological and moral advancement since 1775. This will be a lesson in discovering that which is worth saving, that which is worth pruning and that which is necessary to add. It is a daunting task.

Posted on by WanderingNation

The Question of Practicality

Should we live our lives in a practical manner; that is to say, should our lives be defined by the attention that we pay to the necessities of life, or should it be lived in an aspirational manner; that is to say, should our lives be defined by the fervor with which we hold to our dearest principles?

              In the Christian faith, there is a tenet of charity, defined best, I think, by the parable of the Widow’s Offering (Mark, 12:41-44). Here, for those who may not be familiar with this story, a widow donates her last penny to a temple, which Jesus identifies as being far more generous than any ostentatious donation that a rich man might give, as the repercussions of donating this penny is much more severe for this woman than it is for the rich man to donate a fortune.

How should we, whether Christian or otherwise, take this parable in light of the question at the beginning of this essay? If we are to be like the widow, and give the last of what we have to someone or something else, how might we do so again in the future? Is it better to give all of what we have at the risk of not being able to give again in the future, or is it better to attend to the necessities of our lives first, only giving of the excess, so that we might give and give again?

I do not believe that this is a question that can be answered in any general sense, but it is one that must be answered individually by each person who asks the question of themselves. All I can say is that, in this time of COVID and general panic, we must all take this opportunity to be generous as much as we can be. Take the time to give to the homeless person you see on your grocery run, even if they might have the disease. Be generous, even when fear takes a hold of you. Whether you can be like the widow and give of your last, of whether you can be like the rich man and give only of your excess, at least you are giving. That is all of an answer that I can give – you must answer the question of practicality for yourself.

Posted on by WanderingNation

Struggle

We all wonder what the goal of life is. Some find their meaning in pleasure, some find it on hard work, some in family, in religion, or in any number of pursuits. There are also some who find meaning in struggle. The struggle can be a struggle to accomplish, to overcome, to succeed, to break free from the constraints that we feel hold us down. But for some, the struggle that seek out is simply sought because it is a struggle. There is no end goal, no desire, no metric for success. For these people, the meaning of life is the same that it was for those people who roamed the earth with the mammoths; to struggle to survive. But our modern lives and all the modern amenities surrounding us will not allow this struggle. Sure, there can be a struggle to get nicer things, to move to a better neighborhood, to impress the person who has stolen our gaze. But there is no struggle to survive anymore. And this is, without a doubt, a good thing. But because it is an unequivocal good, we fail to see the negative aspects of a life devoid of mortal struggle. Often, the inability to experience this leads us to a life of apathy, of depression, of intense and unending boredom. So what must we do to find this struggle, this meaning that had sustained humanity until so recently? Should we find the struggle in God? Should we find it in politics? Whether or not we should is a moot point; millions of people have already dedicated their entire beings to this struggle. But we can see the strife this has brought. So where do we find a struggle that gives us meaning, but is also a force for creation and good, not a force of destruction and evil? I do not know. Perhaps it is best that I don’t know, for when people know, it seems that they are all too eager to force their ideas upon others.

Posted on by WanderingNation

1984

“Whoever controls the past controls the future, whoever controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell