Personal Beliefs

I want to start this entry by saying that I cannot oversell the show "The West Wing". It was a very well written political drama about the staff in the White House from the mind of Aaron Sorkin. While greatly idealized, it had many thought provoking themes- from homosexuals in the military to welfare, tax-reform to the psychology of elections. However, one of the recurrent themes has been standing out to me as I re-watch the the show- religion and spirituality. Most of the time, the staff of the White House is seen at odds with the Christian Right, even the very devout President Bartlet. This seemed odd until I began to see the deeper, subtler message behind every clash of ideas. The show does not so much target those who are religious.... it targets those who infringe (or attempt to infringe) on the lives of others.

This was brought home in episode seven of season 4, when Toby Ziegler (The White House Communications Director) told the President that his ex-wife was pregnant. When asked why he had waited so long to tell them, Toby admits it is because he was 'intimidated by his Catholicism. Bartlet's response is so simple- but it really ties the before mentioned theme together. He simply says "Really? Its my Catholicism, it works for me." There it is. The President makes the powerful point that you shouldn't judge others by your religion- you should follow the moral compass you believe in and let others follow their own path.

As simple a message as it is, its one that I feel is still a major problem out in the real world. Most recently has been the huge outcry against letting Gay Scouts in the Boy Scouts. I'm an Eagle Scout, and I know what its like to go out camping and teaching the skills many kids don't get anywhere- survival, sure, but more importantly leadership... and acceptance. I rejoiced when the Scouts repealed their ban (at least partially) because I believe that know some kids who wouldn't of had the opportunity to be part of the experience before now can. Better yet, they can without having to hide who they really are. What I can't believe is that this is even an issue. If we lived in a world where even most of the people prescribed to concept of following one's own beliefs and keeping the sin of judgement from their lips and minds- this ( and many other religious areas of concern) would be a non-issue.

So, I suggest that everyone evaluate their thoughts and actions, and see if you can live to your own standards of a good, moral, and happy life. You'll be happier if you do- I guarantee it.

Rolling Jubilee

We all remember Occupy Wallstreet, and all of the issues they raised. I, like many others, had high hopes for the rallies across the countries. Unfortunately, while the movement is still around, it seems that the majority of the American People have moved on. So has any lasting good come from OWS? I wasn't sure until I read about a program called Rolling Jubilee.

For those of you who don't know what a Jubilee is, the word is referenced in the Bible to be a special year of universal pardon for sins. In this regard, supporters in Occupy Wall Street want to do the same- buying up and forgiving debt for thousands of Americans. You see, how it usually works when it comes to debt is that it is sold to debt collection industries (a billion dollar industry on its own) for pennies on the dollar. Rolling Jubilee is a non-profit which seeks to emulate these firms, but instead of ruthlessly hounding the debtors for payment, they instead forgive the debt. All sorts of debt, from housing to medical bills, have been forgiven all over the country.

As of this post, they have forgiven almost 12 million dollars in debt. This is an excellent program, which is (as far as I understand) real good for real, everyday Americans all over the country. Hopefully they keep at it, and some of you consider donating- who knows? Maybe in the future it'll be your debt which is forgiven.

http://rollingjubilee.org/

As always, feel free to leave any comments for me!

The Cost-Co Query

One of the many arguments against raising the minimum wage, or even having a minimum wage, is it puts a too much of a strain on business. Ignoring the fact that $7.25 an hour isn't even close to enough money for someone to live on without going into debt, the question of our business's survival is still a fair one. However, I'm no longer sure if the numbers actually support this theory. A specific example of a potential source of discrediting information is Costco. Workers start at $11.50 an hour, and tend to have better potential growth in their wages than competitors like Sam's Club. In addition, CEO Jim Sinegals has done everything in his power to make sure every Costco worker has access to benefits and affordable healthcare. Despite this generosity, Costco has seen steady growth annually as Walmart has been slowing down. While Walmart tends to have better profits (potentially from an almost 50% turnover rate among employees, as well as low wages), Cost-Co remains to be a strong competiter.

Why is this? Is it the fact that about a third of the workers are represented by the Teamsters Union? Is it because Costco's employee's are better paid and therefore have a reason to give better service to the customers? I'll be the first to admit that I am not an economist, but it seems to me that the success that Costco, and other firms which act with great generiosity to their employees, seems to show that (at least from a long term perspective) they can still be competitive. They can still make money. Food for thought.

As always, if anyone has any comments I'd love to hear them!

The Problem with Full-Time

As of this moment, and according to Business Insider, only 47% of working age American work full time. It is common for companies such as Walmart to give their employees just under the limit which would make them full-time, thus dodging the need to pay out a variety of benefits these employees would otherwise be entitled to. I have many friends who work extremely hard every week, only to be given 38 or 39 hours of work with no chance of any real benefits.

So I took it upon myself to think up how to circumvent the problem. Lowering the hours a week needed wouldn't really help, as I imagine the corporations in question would simply lower the amount they give to every part-time employee. How does one get around the monumental problem of these easily circumventable loopholes? My thought seemed so simple, I'm sure I can't be the first one to imagine such a solution- what if 'Full-Time' was judged by the average number of hours worked by workers at the company? I understand enforcement could be an issue, but this way would force the majority of firms would be unable to deny their workers any amount of benefits by using a cheap loophole.

The thought is imperfect, and requires more thought, it is an interesting concept. As always, I would love to hear what you think about both my idea and the issue at large.

Decisions

So after some thought, I've decided on what the update schedule will be for this blog. Every week I will post twice, once or Tuesday and once on Friday. This sort of deadline will help me focus, as well as let any of my readers know exactly when to check the site. There is a good chance I will post more than twice a week, despite the deadline.

The Neo-Middle Ages

Recently I have been reading a book by Parag Khanna called "How to Run the World". It has some very interesting insights regarding the future of international diplomacy and the current state of the world, but one specific idea has truly peaked my interest at the moment. Khanna talks about the current power structure of international relation and likens it to the Middles Ages.

Now this concept does require some context for complete understanding, with its root in historical Superpowers and the role they played on a global scale. After World War II the world became characterized by a bipolar power relationship (between the United States and the USSR). Due to the constant power struggle brought on by the cold war, nations fell behind one or the other of these two powers. Those that remained neutral were few and far between, and mattered even less on the global stage. Then the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Cold War was over- the United States was the only true remaining superpower. For a brief time, like when Rome was at its zenith, the US was supreme with no true rivals.

However due to mismanagement of foreign policy as well as factors well outside the US's control, the importance of America began to wane. The tried and true litmus test of military power was slowly rendered more and more obsolete as global politics adapted and evolved. Many would now say that the power vacuum left by the Soviet Union is now being on its way to being filled by China- but Khanna thinks differently.

He cites the rise of NGO's such as Doctor's Without Borders, the Peace Corp, the World Economic Forum, and others as the reason the diplomacy around the world is changing. This is where the concept of the New Middle Age comes in. Like in historic Europe, where politics were not dominated solely on a 'State' level, but on a myriad of levels. NGO's have taken the role of the Church, powerful political families (such as the Clinton's, the Bush's, or the Kennedy's)  are the new Borgias, celebrities often take the role of patrons of the poor and arts, and instead of guilds we have corporations. Each corporation, NGO, and super-powerful individuals wield power equal to or greater than many conventional States when it comes to economic or diplomatic power. Despite the continued institutional bias both the States and the United Nations have against these non-state actors, they will continue to become more and more important in the shaping of global relations.

This is a time of multi-polar relationships, and after additional research, I must agree with Khanna's comparison to the past. As someone interested in history, I do wonder what the ramifications of such an age would be. We have already seen strife and challenges today that rival the war and turmoil that plagued medieval Europe- is the worst yet to come? Or with today's technological advancements in communication are we heading towards a new Rennaissance?

Mission Statement

The other day, as I was getting ready to go to bed, I looked back upon my day. It had been fine, but it had lacked any sort of intellectual stimulation. I realized that the best way to lose any edge my mind may have was by letting it sit idle. So I decided to dedicate at least an hour a day immersing myself in political thought and events. This blog is to keep me honest, give me a reason to keep up with my readings by having a place to share and synthesize information.

This blog will contain issues that I find interesting or I consider pertinent to the field of political science. I will focus on social justice issues, globalization, collectivism, and current American political events as these are the types of politics that most interest me. However I will not limit myself to these topics and instead discuss anything topics that catch my attention during my research,

My current plan is to update this semi-regularly, at least twice a week. If I fall into a routine and decide specific days for updates, I will be sure to make that known. I look forwards to writing my thoughts, and hopefully hearing your comments!