Hot Afghan Summer

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPolitics

Despite current events, I must start with a shameless plug and state, love is in the air! It’s lingering around me like the Delta variant. Recently, I got engaged to my girlfriend, and this has been a very joyous time for us. In addition to my engagement, I’ve been busy writing a full feature film entitled “This Thing of Ours.” It’s a romantic comedy that follows a group of 30ish people dating, marrying, or doing a little bit of everything in between today’s social world of Covid and online dating. 

Given I’ve been surrounded by so many lovey-dovey oriented things, I’ve even thought about current events in relation to dating. Specifically, Afghanistan… and thinking if Afghanistan were a person, she would be Jennifer Lopez. Like J Lo, Afghanistan has had interactions with the greatest and most powerful, yet none have been able to stay. 

And there’s a good reason for this. Afghanistan that is, not the J Lo dating history.   

Back in the summer of 2019, when the world was still innocent and free of being attached to the greatest global health crisis since the 1918 Flu pandemic, Houston-based rapper Megan Thee Stallion released, “Hot Girl Summer.” A catchy little number about… well… being a hot girl in the summer. Meg, (is that what she goes by?), stated the song is simply about “being yourself” and “having a good time.” And like “Hot Girl Summer,” messaging is for people not to follow someone else’s rules for love, but follow your way. A political “Hot Girl Summer” should be applied to Afghanistan. Given the history of the country with constant foreign power intervention, Afghanistan should just be left alone and be single for a while. Let her get a new hairdo, go out for a 60-dollar brunch, even let her post dozens of dog-eared filter pictures, just let Afghanistan be her for a while. 

Dating back to Alexander the Great in 330 BC, nations have tried to either conquer or control the Afghanistan region and people. The latest being the United States, whose involvement with the nation should have only been intelligence and law enforcement… instead, it became another decades-long terrible abusive relationship known far too well to the Afghan people. 

This must end, for there has never been a positive outcome for any nation trying to force their hand with Afghanistan. What should happen is the allowance of an organic government and making it work best for the Afghan people. That outcome might not even be a political science-worthy name for it, but it will be solely for the Afghan people. 

This is true for dating. 

Either a single person themselves or their social networks always will find the need to force a situation on someone, simply to be with someone. Other nations want to force their will on Afghanistan… it’s wrong and should be changed. Some of that “change for democracy” is laced with capitalism and exploitation of resources; however, it doesn’t change the savage nature of the Taliban. The Taliban is one of the most intolerable, hostile, violent, and unproductive governments seen in modern times. With that being said, the nation up until a few weeks ago did experience two decades of some type of freedom and democracy. I just don’t believe a country the size of Texas, with a population bigger than Texas, will simply allow the Taliban to lay rule once again without disruption or outright taking over. 

Love amongst couples is best to be left alone. No matter what you or anyone else thinks, you can’t legislate love. Because one doesn’t like another’s sexual orientation, or the look of their partner, their religion, or whatever, said couple is still going to find a way to be together. No matter how powerful a nation, their people can only be “controlled” or “managed” for so long. They yearn for independence and fate being decided solely by them is the spirit of all people. And if they have to be just “Jenny from the block to do it”, so be it. 

Dictators Are Not Communists

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPoliticsSocial Issues

Not that Communism is the best system to have as the primary economic engine, but it’s important to note that no economic system exists in a vacuum. So when someone points to the failures of a particular country’s economy as “proof their system does not work,” it seems a bit misguided; especially when said country is in actuality a dictatorship.

When the dictators are doing right by the people, the country flourishes. When they are making bad decisions for their people, nothing can stop them and the country suffers. When the people attempt to rebel, they are squashed, imprisoned, executed.

Much of Cuba’s current economic crisis is being blamed on the US Trade Embargo. This obviously factors into the country’s current shortage of food and medical supplies, but at the heart of Cuba’s current misfortune is a government that values power more than its people.

A centralized economy (like a dictatorship) can function if it is making the right choices for its citizens. However, considering how susceptible a government-run economy is to corruption and favoritism, decisions aren’t always made in the best interests of the entire country. A free market is meant to mitigate the poor judgment of political leaders: the people know best what and who is needed so they sort out jobs, resources, supply, and demand on their own.

Vietnam found a way to maintain a Communist government, but embrace some free market enterprise in the mid 80s. It’s reported 30,000+ private businesses were created since then, their economy has flourished, and relations with the US started to normalize in the 90s.

So, where Vietnam succeeded, Cuba seems to be failing. The Castros have “good intentions” for their… people (is “subjects” too cynical?). But when they needed the foresight to understand how a global pandemic would damage their economy and possibly require some major changes, they maintained their status quo. This is why their people are protesting; they have no power to demand accountability from their government (dictators). They can’t vote to change their system. They can’t do anything except literally live and die by the whims of their leaders.

And so maybe Communism isn’t the enemy. Maybe trying to exist outside of the influence of Multi-National Corporations isn’t the enemy. Perhaps Malignant Narcissism is the enemy. Anyone that is not accountable to anyone and believes themselves to be infallible, that person is dangerous and whether they are the leader of a Communist Country, or the President of the United States, they can do serious damage to a multitude of people.

The economic system of the country matters not if the leader is self serving and uses their political position to consolidate power, destroy enemies, and enrich themselves and their allies. As more and more information comes to light, it seems this was happening in the very Capitalist United States of America under the Trump regime.

Now, perhaps Capitalism is the system least susceptible to corruption and so Trump is an anomaly, but to view the U.S. as purely Capitalist is a misconception.

Here’s why: 

-A large amount of our manufacturing and debt come from China (a Communist country). This means we are at least in that regard participating in a Communist system to some extent – we are x percent Communist.

-The entire concept of Insurance is communist in nature: “From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.”

-Any tax-funded job is technically Socialism (army, police, fire, infrastructure, social work, etc.).

The point is: We should be very specific about what is working and what is not so we can create the best situation for everyone.

It is truly malignant narcissism in leadership that ruins countries and economies (as well as families and businesses).

The Free Market has proven to be an incredible mechanism when not being abused or corrupted. Communist and Socialist mechanisms can be implemented efficiently when overseen by Democratic institutions.

Dictatorships are never the best system as they prevent accountability and change for the better. Cuba’s current protests are happening for that reason.

climate-change-2254711_1280

Human Extinction (Brought to You by Capitalism)

by with 3 Comments FeaturedGen Z

With the impacts of climate change already being confronted today and the catastrophes expected in the not-too-distant future, one would think that daily massive demonstrations and a restructuring of everyday life would be taking place all around the world. Is the threat of human extinction not a large enough impetus to snap the masses into action? The moral plague that is capitalism has paved the road to our extinction. The question now, and arguably the most important of our time, is whether or not we will address the ill-effects and effectively rid the world of the environmental destruction that capitalism has cast upon our world.  

Heavy-use of fossil fuels, industrial agriculture, and lifestyle choices are all aspects of the system that require analysis as we work towards minimizing humans’ contributions to climate change. One must note that these aspects are products of capitalism; they have caused the amount of degradation that they have due to the way in which world powers have adopted this exploitative system. Societies around the world must begin transitioning to renewable energy, switching to a farming system that is based upon agroecology, and leading more humble, sustainable lives. Addressing all of these aspects are necessary and commendable starting points but stopping there results in addressing only part of the issue at hand. We must interrogate the entire system that has led to this; we must interrogate capitalism. 

Central to capitalism is individualism; the value of one’s self over (and especially at the expense of) the well-being of society and its people. A true democracy is necessary to effectively challenge corporations’ contributions to climate change. Democracy requires strong, organized communities, something that the toxic value of individualism directly threatens. Under capitalism, it is not the people who have the power, but the corporations and the 1%. Individualism has served as a distraction in the way that it has prevented the masses from joining together to protect the Earth and its people from exploitation. We must abandon individualism and work towards rebuilding our communities so that we are better equipped to challenge corporations that continue to lead us down the path of extinction. 

Another value central to capitalism – and equally as dangerous as individualism – is that of “competition” or Social Darwinism, the theory that fueled individualism. This theory provides people with reason to view the Earth as something that must be conquered. Today we often hear political commentators and guests on corporate news explain the importance of competition and its apparent link to innovation in society. According to these folks, humans are, naturally, always competing with one another. This view is very much anti-human, as humans require one another to survive. In order to be a “winner” in this competition, you must exploit the Earth, you must over-consume, you must actively work towards not cooperating with others and the world around you. In order to “survive” in this “competition” of life, you must produce not what you need, not what your community needs, but as much as you can until all of your resources are used. You must not consume what you need, rather you must consume until you no longer have the resources to do so. It is an odious cycle fueling our extinction.

These values are at the core of capitalism, and the institutions which our society revolves around are founded upon capitalism and its ideals. It is because of this soul-crushing system, and of course our impending extinction, that we must urgently come together and radically restructure society. We cannot rely on the workings of capitalism to save us from this threat, nor can we only address practices that are simply a product of this system. We must actively challenge all that we have been conditioned to believe and accept. We must recreate strong, unified communities. The masses must recognize their collective power and work together to challenge the few who are leading us to the end of human civilization. 

This article was originally published on 3 October 2018.

Similar Read: A Center-Right Response to Climate Change

In educational partnership with 

Trump and Smokers

by with 2 Comments FeaturedPolitics

Witnessing Jenna Ellis on Bill Maher a few weeks ago speculate that she will have to defend her right to practice Christianity under a Biden administration is reminiscent of other bad faith arguments (fear-mongering propaganda) made throughout history.

I performed at piano bars in Michigan when smoking publicly indoors was legal. It was horrible. My voice was constantly hoarse, my eyes agitated, my clothes always reeking, and my health in fluctuation. My exposure to second-hand smoke for 10 years will probably affect me later in life as if I was a smoker myself (I never was).

In the early 2000s, there were no gig opportunities that prevented smokers from blowing their poison into my lungs each night. Owners would never make a stand against this “bloc” of patrons. Many other performers and staff partook in the ritual so sadly, yet successfully peddled to consumers for centuries; only in the last 40 years proven to be a fatal and highly addictive (not to mention expensive) vice.

Luckily, good and healthy people fought like hell to outlaw smoking in public places in Michigan for the benefit of all, especially people like me.

It wasn’t easy. There was an army of propagandists and liars lead by the tobacco industry and legions of smokers, that tried to prevent their fortunes and way of life, respectively, from being changed.

“The bars will all close! You’ll lose all your business! You’ll drive away your best customers and thousands of bar owners, staff, and musicians will become unemployed!”

You would think the entire bar industry would close overnight if smoking was outlawed. The opposition to banning smoking was violent.

Of course, they were all not only wrong about these false narratives, but the complete opposite of their ignorant (and/or dishonest) predictions was true.

Smoking was outlawed. Bar business flourished. The lies were exposed.

It turns out that smokers still want to go out and socially drink regardless of their ability to smoke indoors. More importantly, an enormous chunk of the population who had stayed away from smoky bars now felt comfortable frequenting their local establishment.

“I can finally breathe when I go to a bar or restaurant. My clothes don’t reek anymore when I come gone from a long night. My allergies don’t flare up. I’m sick less often.”

*SMOKERS* were saying those things, not to mention the scores of non-smokers.

This phenomenon of lying, fear-mongering, and spreading propaganda to get what *you* want at *my* expense is par for the course for human history.

Now, they WERE right about a smoking ban diminishing smoking sales. That’s the only truth they could credibly argue. Cigarette sales declined and stocks went down.

Tobacco industry: lost money.
Smokers: slightly inconvenienced.
Everyone else: the quality of life, health, and opportunities skyrocketed.

So when I hear dishonest propaganda that communism will take root with a Biden administration (Biden is, was, and will always be a capitalist), or that religious practice will be oppressed (Biden is a devout Catholic), or that the military will be diminished (Biden’s son served), I just think of the smokers clinging to their way of life.

The stock market has already gone up. Biden attends church and prays the rosary, encouraging people of all faiths to worship freely as they wish. Biden has no plans to diminish or disrespect our military in any way.

However,

Trump: will lose power (and money).
Rich: will be slightly inconvenienced (when they pay more in taxes).
Everyone else:  the quality of life, health, and opportunities will skyrocket.

Similar read: The 37th Best Place to Live in America

Fascism 101

by with 2 Comments CultureFeaturedPoliticsRace Relations

President Trump recently tweeted this in regard to the four freshmen Congresswomen who oppose his policies: 

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

And added this today:

“If you’re not happy, you can leave.”

These statements are fascistic in nature and seek to do two things: 

1. Create division in this country so that Trump can align himself with the more powerful side. 

If everyone got along, we would have no need to hire a strong man to enact our wishes on those who disagree with us. Trump wants sides and he will claim the more violent, outspoken, loyal, consistently voting, and ruthless one.

“You’re with the police or against us.”

“But there is clear video evidence of racist motivations driving police officers to murder minorities recently and while obviously, the majority of cops are not racist, we should probably examine this and try to improve…”

“NOPE! You’re against us!”

“You support the troops or you are against us.”

“But I want to raise awareness about an issue so I consulted with U.S. Veterans about how to properly honor the flag and our country while still protesting the deficiencies we might still need to address…”

“NOPE! You’re against us!”

“You’re a capitalist or a communist.”

“But we already have a dozen socialist programs in this country like (ironically) the police, the military, fire, infrastructure, public schools, parks, etc., and while the free market is an incredible mechanism that should drive MOST industries, maybe we should consider taking healthcare out of the private sector because Insurance Companies prioritize wealth over health.”

“NOPE! You’re a communist.”

“You’re a Christian or the Devil.”

“But I’m Jewish/Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Buddhist/etc.”

“NOPE! You’re the Devil.”

“You’re either American, or you don’t support me.”

“But I don’t support you.”

“NOPE! Then you’re not American, go back to where you came from!”

When you tell someone, “go back to where you came from,” what does that even mean!? My ancestors came to the United States mostly from England and Belgium and I don’t know how I would even begin to “go back” to those countries. This is an impossible statement and obviously racist since Trump has never said it to any White American.

2.  Destroy Any Criticism or Descent. 

The other horrific quote about leaving if you are not happy is the idea that you essentially cannot criticize the United States or the President. “If you don’t like it, you can leave (or die). We’re never changing, no matter how corrupt, cancerous, or callous we have become.”

This is indicative of narcissists who tend to do major damage to those around them and get furious when their behavior is criticized. I’ve come up with my own personal definition that I think states the condition clearly:

“A narcissist is someone who punches you in the face repeatedly and when you ask them to stop, they say, ‘don’t tell me what to do!’”

Trump is obviously a narcissist, but most of his supporters are narcissists as well. They have no regard for others, only their collective identity which they believe is the “real” America. The President thinks he and his minority bloc of supporters own the country.

What Trump does not realize is that when he says, “If you don’t like it here, you can leave,” what he is really saying is, “If you don’t like it here, vote for my opponent in the 2020 election.”

Because that’s how a Democracy like America works best: We fight each other on the ballot, not the battlefield.

This article was originally published on 15 July 2019.

Similar Read: Diplomacy and War: Know the Difference 

School in September?

by with 2 Comments CultureFeatured

[New Contributor]

What will school look like in September? It’s a question that’s at the top of most people’s minds, especially educators. This is typically the time of year most educators spend reflecting on their practice, spending time with family and in some cases attending professional development to engage in learning communities to share best practices. However, this year things are different. We’re in the midst of a global pandemic with questions that can’t be answered, with the most pressing question being, “Do we return to school for face to face instruction, or do we go completely virtual?” While the answer seems pretty clear, many districts are planning to return to school for face to face instruction in September, and with the threat of losing out on federal funding for not returning, it seems as if this is their only option.  

Face to face instruction for large student populations poses a health risk for anyone working in the building, especially educators and students, and quite frankly, with cases on the rise this option just doesn’t make sense. Teachers will now be responsible for things such as cleaning the desks, supplies, and anything else that may have been used before students enter their room all while managing and ensuring student use of PPE and teaching with students sitting 6 feet apart. Let’s remember, this is merely one layer and does not begin to address the nuanced interactions educators and students have at school. 

Although virtual learning is the most viable option, it still comes with drawbacks. Not all families have access to the internet or devices to support the students in the household, not to mention working from home is not an option for many parents and neither is leaving their child at home unattended for the workday. Furthermore, we all know that learning is social, and without intentional planning and adequate teacher training, students will lose important critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Although there are obvious health risks in returning to school for face to face instruction, there are other long-lasting issues that if unchecked, will continue to decimate the already frail educational structure. In my humble opinion, it’s time for a complete overhaul and restructuring of what education should look and feel like. 

Despite being in the eye of the storm, we can still find peace. Returning to school for face to face instruction quite frankly is too dangerous and will inherently be the cause of more outbreaks. It’s time for a complete overhaul and it begins with the community. For example, communities could start homeschooling co-ops that mirror what more affluent districts are doing. There would be individualized instruction, smaller class sizes and classes could be held outdoors and in other non-traditional settings. Companies like Tailor Made Learning, based in Detroit, MI, do a great job of sitting with families and designing an educational experience that truly allows families to have a say in HOW their young person learns. Community Activists and educators such as Nikala Asante, based in Houston, TX, are creating and building opportunities for virtual African-Centered homeschooling. There are options. 

We live in a capitalist society and it’s time we understood what that truly means. All too often the people impacted the most by these decisions are not at the table, yet we have yet to realize we are the ones with the real power. Sending your child back to school in September for face to face instruction is not safe. The world of education is changing and it’s time we started designing experiences that teach our young people how to think critically and problem solve in ways that positively impact OUR communities. Yes, it takes hard work, but the outcomes are worthwhile and most importantly long-lasting.

Similar Read: Do You Remember 2020?

A Center-Right Response to Climate Change

by with 4 Comments FeaturedPolitics

“And I’m like, ‘You try! You do it’,” Ocasio-Cortez exclaimed. “‘Cause you’re not. ‘Cause you’re not. So, until you do it, I’m the boss. How ’bout that?”  – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 

The Freshman Congresswoman laid down the gauntlet to her critics after vocal bipartisan criticism surfaced. The official details of the proposal have been taken down, so it is possible, if not likely, that the key bullet points have changed. Ignoring the more dubious items like cow flatulence and ending airplane traffic that spawned a litany of viral memes, there are opportunities to make meaningful changes to combat climate change that a broad coalition of voters can get behind. To responsibly address climate change, we must address the economic costs and opportunities for working and middle-class citizens to transition and embrace green alternatives via taxes, free market principles and access, and cost-efficient technologies.

In 2010, President Obama attempted to push a carbon tax bill through Congress. At the time, it faced broad opposition due to new taxes and energy costs consumers/taxpayers would be forced to absorb. The idea, in that form, would be traded and sold as a Wall Street commodity, and not something average Americans would benefit from. Taxing carbon emissions disproportionately affects lower-income constituents because, for the most part, they cannot afford most new technologies. Energy-efficient refrigerators and fuel-efficient hybrids are not realistic purchases for people living paycheck-to-paycheck. To make carbon taxes remotely plausible, there needs to be a revenue-neutral offset for sales and income tax rates so that taxpayers are not out additional income. If the tax burden is not revenue neutral, the burden will be indirectly shouldered by the lowest income bracket. But, if income and other tax rates are offset, and taxpayers can potentially come out ahead by taking the initiative, you create the opportunity for meaningful change of habits that benefit our environment. Using the LEED Certifications from the US Green Building Council, we can propose several tax incentives that most taxpayers can readily qualify for that are both green and fiscally responsible.

First, we should provide meaningful tax breaks for property owners based on the energy efficiency of their buildings. When construction jobs are applying for LEED certification, one of the main focal points is the level of energy efficiency. Creating the incentive for homeowners or landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their property through insulation and other materials lowers energy costs and carbon output. These incentives can also apply to renters living in energy efficient complexes.

Second, we should provide tax breaks on the use of local raw materials and hydrologically efficient vegetation. This cuts down on the transportation costs for shipping materials, and it lowers water bills. The reality is most people want to be environmentally-friendly, but the dedication to this cause is directly related to the additional costs associated with this.

The dirty little secret about most environmental policies is the companies and industries that most environmental activists target are strong supporters of most climate change policies. Corporations like Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and hundreds more were all sponsors and supporters of the Paris Climate Accord. The biggest misnomer of the entire debate is these corporations are actively opposing these agreements. In most cases, these corporations are equipped for these policy changes, and are more interested in protecting their market share of their industry. This presents an opportunity to remove industrial barriers that prevent startup companies from entering the market place. Our capitalistic system is built on the competition. Removing the barriers of entry into the industries where customers have choices will spur new innovations. There is a market demand for cleaner technologies, and the only way to feed this demand is to remove the bureaucratic red tape that keeps these products from reaching the marketplace.

We live in an era of constant technological breakthroughs: smartphones, drones, video game consoles that function as entertainment hubs. Through universal Wi-fi access and 4G technologies, you can use an app to access, communicate, or purchase anything you want with a simple click of the button. The app’s viability is completely dependent on the convenience and affordability it provides. Leveraging this mentality is the key to making incremental, sustainable progress for combating climate change. Most people, regardless of party affiliation, will choose the greenest alternative if it is cost-competitive. In the last 15 years, we witnessed an explosion of green cost-competitive products, which lead to the average American having a smaller carbon footprint each year. To continue this trend, it is important to free up our markets so that new ideas and new businesses can enter and compete to make the fundamental changes that we need. 

This article was originally published on 1 March 2019.

Similar Read: Human Extinction (Brought to You by Capitalism)

IS KAEPERNICK THE NEW FACE OF CAPITALISM?

by with One Comment FeaturedNFLSports

While everyone is excited about Kaepernick being the new face of Nike, and rightfully so, we must realize the capitalism at play, and ask a pivotal question, what is Nike going to do regarding real change now that they stand to profit from Kaepernick’s Civil Rights protest?

But why would Nike attempt to profit from Kaepernick’s protest? Maybe supporting him and his protest was inevitable. After all, one of their biggest athletes in LeBron James has become more vocal on social issues. They can’t sway too far from his off-the-court mission, right? So despite the perceived controversy, why not sway towards it. As a publicly traded company (NKE), increasing shareholder value will ALWAYS be their number one priority. So odds are management wouldn’t make such a decision that could possibly threaten their revenue if they didn’t believe they could somehow flip it and capture the value they’ve sought to highlight and attach to their brand.

This is an interesting move by Nike considering Kaepernick is actively suing NFL owners for colluding to keep him out of the league, and they (Nike) just signed an 8-year extension to continue being the official sponsor for the NFL’s sideline apparel and game-day uniforms. If you’re Nike it sounds like a hell of a conflict. So why jump head first into this controversial issue?

A few reasons come to mind… 

#1 They truly agree with Kaepernick’s protest, and unlike most brands who are trying to avoid this issue, they realize their involvement at some point is inevitable, so why not be the first brand to get behind it?

#2 They realize the value and potential revenue that can be made from jumping behind this issue. They’ve calculated the risk or potential pushback by being the first brand to do so, and they’re willing to experience the short-term pain in return for long-term gain… or…

#3 Some weird combination of 1 and 2.

Whatever the reason might be, it’s done. Just remember, Nike is a public company (NKE). They don’t make moves without thinking about their shareholders, specifically how to increase shareholder value and ultimately maximize it. So while a publicly traded company in Nike has decided to recognize Kaepernick’s protest, I think we’re within bounds to question how genuine it is if they likely stand to profit from it, and more importantly… what are they going to do regarding real change specific to why Kaepernick decided to protest in the first place, police brutality and other injustices in the criminal justice system? Time will surely tell. 

What do you think? 

(On August 31, 2018, Nike’s stock closed at $82.20. Let’s see how their stock is doing in 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.)