Saturday, November 17, 2012

The Stewart Consortium: Behind the Scenes Mitt Romney

The Stewart Consortium: Behind the Scenes Mitt Romney: Apparently, Mitt Romney has shown true colors once again. When behind closed doors or on the phone Mitt Romney true colors shines.  The ex-...

Behind the Scenes Mitt Romney

Apparently, Mitt Romney has shown his true colors once again. When behind closed doors or on the phone Mitt Romney true colors shines.  The ex-Governor on a phone call with his donors about his campaign – blamed the “other” for coming out to vote for President Obama. Romney asserts that the president gave “gifts” to these “others” to ensure turnout – and therefore this is why their prediction models drastically failed. These “others” that ex-Governor Romney is referring to are blacks, (young non-married) women, and Latinos (ABC news audio links).

By implication, ex-Governor Romney asserts that by President Obama signing the Affordable Healthcare Act into law, signing an executive order dubbed “Dream Act Lite” for Latinos, and in turn stood in as champion for (young) women to get “free” birth control pills, President Obama's “gifts” ensured the 47 percent turnout in majority numbers.



Admittedly, the ex-governor has a point to an extent. The turnout of the “others” was driven in part by
the machinations of the president's promises, and  promises kept, but what the ex-governor fails to
admit, or fails to acknowledge that, the people who voted were also part of “them.” Many, on both side of the aisle, believed the country needs to move forward, and, in order to to do that, the “them” of the majority felt that President Obama made his case. The arrogance of Mitt Romney's assertion reveals his true identity in his belief of self-delusion and his inability to face the facts that his over confidence cost him the election.

Additionally, Romney bought into the political modeling that was being served up by the conservative right polling. The notion that this demographic political shift came out of nowhere and was unaccounted for is pure “malarkey.”

The factor of the matter that this dynamic within  the electoral base has dramatically shifted the cultural perspective. A perspective not solely  based on demographics, but of socioeconomic groups, the access to information through the Internet, social media, smart-phone, and even water-cooler conversation has empowered these groups. Technology, the Internet, television, and especially cable television have engulfed the public square and replace the written word to some degree. So—when the ex-Governor Romney espouses to his donors that the election was “bought” by the “gifts” from the President he has not only reaffirmed the perception the "others" thought of him, but of the republican party.

A party that sees itself as “entitled,” and “should have won,” if not for those pesky kids and “others.” If the republicans are to win in 2016—and that is a big if—a honest, heart wrenching, soul searching  examination is required.  This is not the republican party of the 1950s or 1960s. It is not even the party of the 1980s. This party has gone too far to the extremes and will become extinct if course correction is not made soon. This past election is a clarion call for the right and a call to arms for the moderates in the party. It is time challenge the base and shake up the etch-a-sketch moderates who think that they are “entitled” to an conservative faux reality feedback loop that fails recognize facts. Remember, when an anvil drops on your head you are severely hurt in reality—and when the American people decide to re-elect President Obama, add seats, in the House and the Senate, it is time to ask yourself as a party—republicans--is it worth it to ignore the 47 percent anymore?

The New American Pathway is on its way....


Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The New American Pathway


It has been a week since the election and the dynamics of the politics in Washington has not changed much.  John Boehner after the election proclaimed that the “people's mandate” favored the republicans and it was not to raise “marginal tax rates.” Quite a curious statement since the choice between ex-Governor Mitt Romney and President Barrack Obama had primarily been about the direction of the country (United States of America) and how to handle the continued financial crisis were are currently in and facing. Of the 39 states exit polled, approximately 60 percent stated that raising taxes on the wealthy, in order to pay their fair share, was one of the reasons they voted for President Obama.

Now, moderate democrats are preparing to give away the  prime position by suggesting that ex-Governor was right in suggesting in the later day that of the campaign was: to “cap” deductions at 35,000 dollars, reducing taxes, within the margins by 20 percent, while reducing capital gains and corporate tax rates. The suggestion by the ex-Governor was flawed, in that, his budget also suggested an increase of two trillion dollars for defense spending over a ten year period, which calculates to a 200 billion dollars over ten years.

In addition, ex-Governor Romney also wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) setting
back access and affordability to the average consumer. This in turn would add to the deficit and hinder
the financial recovery needed according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports. To the
everyday, and those who are not, Americans saw this message as moving the country backwards.
Elections have  consequences.

This should be understood by each side of the political aisle. It happened in 2010 with the backlash of a new electoral caucus – the Tea Party. And, now with the 2012 elections.  Failure to recognize this “truth” that “election have consequence” is to the detriment to a political party as the republican party found out this November.

Demographics matter. The shifting makeup of the American experience is due to not only “race,” but
also, due to the the fact the racial majority has failed to recognize that the “other” is excelling despite
them and themselves.

The recognition of their (being the “other”) own empowerment can be obtained through the ballot box
has begun crystallize in the conscious of these "others." Seeing the failure of their 2010 participation and the awareness of that failure  in legislatures across the country trying to restrict the access to the right to vote energized the base of liberals, moderates, and the disenfranchised.  Understanding their failure of the mid-terms to participate in this election would do themselves harm.

This demographic dynamic, if it continues, will be tough over come in future elections unless the
republican right is able to adapt and adopt more moderate stances. In addition, the republican party
must start to see that the social justice views of inequity is not a path toward communism but a
destination to egalitarianism. This destination will not arrive my life time, but the closing of the gap
can be assured for the common interests of our country—and the continuing journey towards progress and the beacon of opportunity, hope, and being the “golden city on the hill.”

Sunday, November 11, 2012

A Reflection of an American Election

image from layoutsparks.com
It was a very satisfactory night. The election returns from across see-sawed back early as the southern and eastern states battled for supremacy. It wasn't until the final piece, mid-eastern state fell in to place, that clarity came. Ohio leaned and then tilted in the favor of the incumbent president. A president that led the nation kicking and screaming with a health-care reform, a president that battled for the passage of equal pay for women. A president that battled for reform of Wall Street financial service companies; and, a president that sought too seek out civil liberties for people in love with the same sex.

Today America reaffirmed the belief that anybody can be president – even a black man. A man of color is just as entitled to lead the country for consecutive terms as any white man;  meanwhile, the United States of America has reasserted that the vision of its people are far-reaching and ambitious. The re-election of President Barrack Hussein Obama confirms that the documents of America's founding are more than a sum of its parts, but as a whole, aspirational and inspirational confirmations of human dignity, liberty, and vision to the human spirit.

Admittedly, some might declare that this victory of President Obama's was nothing more than main stream media selling a bill of goods to a gullible public. Nonetheless, I would counter to those cynics that the reason the “main stream media” sells the product it has is because they reflect public attitudes and those attitudes are the main stream.

The failure of Mitt Romney and the republican party is that the self-delusion that propagates conservative media and the extreme right relies on the illusion of a false nostalgia of “days gone by.” The image of a golden age, where conformity, uniformity, conservatism, and that “father knows best” are no longer a reality. In fact, it never existed. The na├»ve belief that the face of America has always been conservative has never been true. Quite the opposite. United States of America has always been quite progressive. From the Federalist Papers to the Declaration of Independence to the United States Constitution of America demonstrates our country's progressiveness.

Moreover, the failure of the republican party has been its failure to recognize America's changing demographics and that their need for inclusion is dependent upon its survival. In addition, the extremes of the right fail to recognize what conservatism really means. Conservatism does not mean to preserve – and remain static – or pass some ideological purity test, but to mean, according to the Miriam-Webster on-line-dictionary -- to believe in “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual change to abrupt change.” Notice it does not call for stagnation the succession of progress.

The Miriam-Webster dictionary continues, “specifically: such a philosophy call individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care).” Notice that the dictionary tries to crystallize a succinct meaning in the modern political forum not in the archaic. The dictionary does reference the first usage of conservatism by referencing Edmund Burke's observation of the French Revolution and its effect on the population. in which he argues for the conservation of the State and the institutions of civilization and the rule of law and therefore gradual movement of change.

The evidence before the republican party has been on the wall since 1996. The future of United States changing demographics  was noticed,  in 2004, by republican President George W. Bush with the inclusion of others that are not like “themselves”-- Latinos. Unfortunately, the core base of the republican party soon retracted the hand of extension once the re-election of  President Bush.

 In November 2012, however, the Presidential election revealed that United States of America face of its people is changing, more diverse, more inclusive—and more libertarian than ever before. The “live and let live” philosophy in terms of social issues significantly impacted many races across the nation and that the consensus for many Americans is to move forward as we the people and our government try to heal from the polarization of a hard fought political season.

United States of America is truly becoming its a potential -- the melting pot -- that has been proclaimed in our Americana ethos legends...

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Americans Beyond the 47 percent

In 2007, many GOP candidates decided not to attend many African American political forums that focused on minority issues (link). The conspicuous absence of the four major front-runners at that time Fred Thompson, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and now candidate for 2012 presidency, former Governor Mitt Romney demonstrated to the Morgan State University in Baltimore the lack of importance minority issues seem to resonate with candidates.

In the various  newspapers, network news articles, blogs with specific quotes, stated more eloquently at that time the feelings of minority groups. From the perspectives of both liberal (SFGateSeattle Times), and conservative (CBN News via Internet Way Back Machine, Financial Times, and (WSJ) media, as well both democrat and republicans discoursed on how they view slight was seen in 2007.

Now in 2012, that slight has occurred again in the comments by Mitt Romney in referring to the 47 percent to a private fundraiser. Romney tells his audience perspective on how he sees the electorate. For many, this revelation was new, but for some, the critics who have watched Romney run for the presidency more than eight years it was not. His facade is the republican facade and their shared ideology.



In 2007, when an opportunity to step up to the plate to lead, to find compromise on controversial issues, no one is there in the batter box. Leading republicans had an opportunity to show that they represent all Americans, and even though they may not agree on all issues, at least to say, “I am here to participate in the discussion.” However, these men were not, Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson state that they had scheduling conflicts. If you believe that, I have some beach front property for you in Colorado.

In January and February 2012, opportunities to lead or at least show that he, Mitt Romney, had a "backbone," decided to "nuance," to "massage,"  to "cower" instead of speaking out with courage. For instance, Mitt Romney had the chance to stand up to the controversial radio host Rush Limbaugh for referring Sandra Fluke as a "slut," because of her testimonial and defense for access to contraceptives but instead wavered.

 A Contraceptive Study (link) reveals that abortion rates are reduced, when free access to contraceptives are given. This study, which was revealed recently, contradicts the beliefs of the religious and far fringe right. Furthermore, as of August 1, 2012, the Affordable Care Act requires that major medical healthcare plans, both group and individual, provide free contraceptive coverage for women. This new required coverage was the center of the debate of last February instilling a false sense of loss liberty for those caught in patriotic jingoism and religious idealism.

Mitt Romney response, as put forth by David Axelrod, was "Cowardly" as the surrounding controversy around Sandra Fluke and contraceptive debate exploded. Admittedly, Romney was trying to assuage his conservative republican base, but his tempered response left the general public cold and the night time comedians folly. One does not need to pander phony considerations, such as giving an apology for slavery, segregation (Governor Brownback), or trying to create another program for housing opportunity for minorities (ex-Governor Huckabee), or even for sexist remarks (Limbaugh); it is not necessary.

What matters, as the bottom feeding candidates did in 2007, was to show up, whether it is physically or viscerallyShowing up is half the battle in trying to resolve issues and differences and finding compromises.  A mere five years later, the republican party has failed to be inclusive on any level. Mitt Romney appearance at NAACP, at the very least, was a political calculation -- but for most observers it came across as patronizing.

There are traditional demographic tendencies that are severely stacked against a republican. And, I concede that it may be perceived as a waste of time and resources; however, as a presidential candidate (as president), and as a person, who wants to represents all of America, it might be advisable to show up to a few minority groups voting blocs to show that one represents all Americans.

 It is easy to go places where everyone loves you and agrees with you and does not take much to persuade them, but a true measure of a leader is making the tough decisions, trying to persuade those who do not agree with you.

The ability to find compromise with those that you may not agree with you, but in the end of the day, realizing that we, born as citizens, or those immigrate (legally) to become citizens, want the same thing to be Americans and are Americans. No matter if you are a person of color or white, dropping the hyphenation between our ethnicities, Irish, Italian, Mexican, or African, we are Americans first. The failure of Mitt Romney to see this in his commentary regarding the 47 percent (was) and is not only disconcerting only for minorities, but to all Americans of any color or socioeconomic group. This is not end of the world type issue, but it could surely handicaps the vision of a country that says, we are for all creeds, ethnicities, colors, and class.

Saturday, October 06, 2012

War on Women -- Part Three


In part one and two of this blog, discussed how women are coming under attack constitutionally. This blogger has made an effort to demonstrate this by showing how conservative legislatures and social extreme religious groups have impacted women's rights to privacy.
"The time to claim the birth rights of women are far overdue and the time for full representation in the political forum is at hand.This is the decade of the women -- right, left, and center. Let the refocus-ing of values, social mores, and justice begin ..."

In the latest round of news, a school district in Louisiana further illustrates how far conservative administrators are willing to stray (link). Going against federal law, the school has decided to ostracize teen-mothers by either expulsion or offering the girls homeschooling if they refuse to be tested for pregnancy, or are pregnant. The Delhi Charter School, in Delhi, Louisiana, according to the ACLU, which has filed a lawsuit against the school, charge that:
.... female students who are suspected of being pregnant are told that they must take a pregnancy test. Under school policy, those who are pregnant or refuse to take the test are kicked out and forced to undergo home schooling....
A bill that is currently in committee, in the United States House of Representatives, is a national personhood bill-H.R. 212, which dictates that from the moment of conception (fertilization) that human life begin and "shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood (link).

Arizona just passed a law, sponsored by State Representative Kimberly Yee and signed into by Arizona governor Janet Brewer, according to the Examiner.com  (link here) and Plan Parenthood, " ... Defines pregnancy in a way that bans abortion two weeks before actual fertilization.  It calculates gestational age starting with the first day of the last menstrual period rather than the date of conception. Essentially, before one is the sparkle in your mother's eye she is pregnant. There are other seven states who have similar laws.

And then, there is U. S. Representative, Todd Akin, who asserts, in an local television interview, that in the cases of "legitimate rape" a woman's body has some sort of "natural biochemical" defense from preventing her from getting pregnant. Setting aside the biological inaccuracy, the front half of his statement -- "legitimate rape" -- is code for the "worthiness" of the abortive act; and, even then among more stringent pro-life activists, however, rape is not sufficient reason to abort a fetus.

These are but a few of the events that happened over the summer of 2012. The list of events that happened to restrict women's right you reach the apex in the republican nominating convention. The platform for the 2012 Republican convention states on multiple occasions the denial federal funds being used for abortions domestically or internationally. This also included the denial of federal funds for sexual education training and that of school providing materials for contraceptives and counseling for abortions for teens. In fact, the GOP platform states the following,
Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually. It is effective, science-based, and empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes and avoid risks of sexual activity. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception. We support keeping federal funds from being used in mandatory or universal mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening programs.
In essence, this restriction of funding sex education is suppose to shift the control back to familial households and away from public schools by reducing the influence of social mores of liberalism. Furthermore, it disempowers adolescent females in understanding and providing information on the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). For instance, according to Lifenews.com article (11/18/11)., teen pregnancy rates had dropped three years in row as reported by the CDC, which was attributed in part to abstinence education programs; yet, the article revealed an increase in teen STDs.

This anomalous increase seem to displace the rationality of less pregnancies equating to more teen STDs and continuing, at the same, the condemnation of birth control.

The GOP platform therefore is a political document that asserts several policies on expansion of theocratic values disguised in secular conservative rhetoric; but, I digress. The war on women is a multivariate campaign that has endangered human liberties of women -- young and old alike. The indoctrination of the extremes has wrangled the war on women into the level of obfus-cation, confusion, and polarization. The time to claim the birth rights of women are far overdue and the time for full representation in the political forum is at hand.This is the decade of the women -- right, left, and center. Let the refocusing of values, social mores, and justice begin ...

Friday, October 05, 2012

Politics in Review: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, or When It Simply Gets on My Last Nerve

Editor's Comment: This post was originally written in July of 2007. At that time, the discussion on immigration was highly charged. The controversy of rather one was a racist because they did not agree with the political correct of the left polarized the debate. The middle ground fell away and left any idea of compromise stagnate. This re-posting of my 2007 blog comes by the way of Internet Archive -- Way Back Machine -- from my blog of the same name but of a different web hosting service that is now offline. In the last segment of this in UPDATED section. The discussion takes into context the present situation of the illegal immigrant or undocumented worker as viewed in the current presidential race of 2012.

In a recent column, in my local paper here (July 2007), in Denver, Colorado, USA, we have a space in the newspaper for the “people” called Colorado Voices. This “supported” space gives the paper the ability to say that it is “fair and balance,” in presenting all commentary in regards to the opposition and their “ideas.”

However, and there is a however, The Denver Post, the local paper, I speak of, and of our two daily newspapers (the other was the Rocky Mountain News), the more liberal has situated the Colorado Voices guest author in a “no win” situation. The author, Bellie Louden (a deputy sheriff and an army veteran) and, in case you are interested, a black American (raised in Oklahoma), has touted the argument once more, “What part of the illegal do you not understand?” And, considering her background (admittedly on my part cultivating a stereotype) for the respect of the “chain-of-command,” “rigidity to regulations,” and “rule-of-law” I am not surprised.

With that said her column “I’m a Racist?” (see link here) punctuates the political discourse in this country of late—emotional hyperbole and ad hominem attacks if one does not like what a person has to say—you call them a name. This type of discourse, naturally, does a disservice and continually recreates the environment of a “cognitive dissonant” in America. A society of polarization, animosity, and vitriol deconstructs the middle for compromise and rationality. Both side of the immigration are in the extreme of emotionalism. The environs of such a culture create polarization, vehemence, and a place where the word of “compromise” is lambasted and chastised—and ad hominem attacked for the mere suggestion.

Finding the middle (or near middle) has been this country forte, and at times, the extremes has also been exercised as well. Nevertheless, what my local paper did (most cleverly) has subverted the deputy sheriff’s argument, because of their previously editorial commentaries regarding the immigration issue. Her assertion is this: let’s get back to the place of “rational,” or at the least, “presented rational” to come across as common sense. Her attitude is this: Simply, the law has been broken by golly and that is the end of the argument. Period. In essence, the moment the illegal alien, or undocumented worker, or whatever political correct term is correct, crossed the border illegally they are a criminal.

As common sense as that view is, it ignores the history of immigration of the illegal alien. To be sure, the history of this country was built on “undocumented worker.” One did not have to such documentation during the expansion of this country (before Ellis Island).

Moreover, Louden is mistaken, slavery did not begin the process of “oppression” as inferred by the author, it began when one group determines it is “superior” to another group and not equal in status. This is not defined by race, creed, or color for that matter, it is decided by the dominate society’s perception view of reality. Both sides are staking a claim to a position that is indefensible—both sides are racist (see the recent Leonard Pitts, Jr. see link here ) to some degree, even within the same racial category. Take note this is not an indictment but a recapitulation of cultural reality. 

This is also goes to prove a point, reiterated by anthropologists, who have been stating for a quite, race is an arbitrary and defined by one’s own cultural ideals and core beliefs.

This nation was built on undocumented workers.  The building of the nation’s railroad by the Chinese (coming from the West Coast) and the Irish (coming from the East Coast) among many others as well. One should also take note that immigrants were not process through Ellis Island or similar areas until late into the 19th century. If one had a strong, a willingness to “build” the institutions of America (this includes farming)—come hither. There were exceptions, of course, slavery. But one of the roots of slavery and its “ill advised attitudes” (misconceptions) was economics and core beliefs of superiority that relegated the tolerance of such ideas.

The South contended, for one of its reasons that, it was economic necessity for slavery to be maintained. The unfair economic power, of the North, put them at a disadvantage. The dictating of domestic policy, of “how to run” their economies was a state issue. Moreover, the inventions to follow, such as the cotton gin, were years away, and the subsequent industrialization of manual labor had not been foreseen yet. Granted, one of the failing of the human conditions is its ability to be shortsighted.

Nonetheless, the core of the South assertion was they could not survive, nor would the country (if they had ceded control) without the “cheap” access to labor, or in the view many plantation owners—their “property.” This is the same assertion for those of the pro “undocumented worker,” in that, the contributory factors far outweigh the con side of the discourse and the contention that the undocumented are inter-connected into our economy.

Overall, this assertion by pro immigration is specious, because it does a disservice to the discussion. The illegal immigrate or undocumented worker are inextricably more complex than simple slogans and platitudes. Admittedly, the undocumented worker issue is generational, in fact, since the founding of the country. Moreover, the exasperation of the last twenty years notwithstanding is not because of the “ill-advised” machinations of the late 1980’s immigration policy, but the lack of enforcement and the surrender to “big business” for labor.

Additionally, the Western hemisphere’s free trade agreements, especially in regards to Mexico because of its proximity. Furthermore, both parties (Republicans and Democrats) have effectively ignored this issue by not responsibly adjusting the legal immigration levels accordingly and letting a series of perfect storm domestic policies come to fruition and create this present maelstrom.. And, there is another factor—the war.
.
The critics of the present day legal and illegal immigration have noted that the borders (to the south primarily) are sieves and no concerted effort to secure them has been made. And, there seem to be no “urgency” even after September 11th. Those who want to destroy us, they say, can and are, will harm us. These assessments are valid enough, but lest we forget those who attacked us, were in the country legally and came in the front door.

Furthermore, and I will concede this assessment, however, if the present President Bush's administration had secured the borders and the ports in the days following 9/11 attacks, it would not have the resistance it has today (in regards to immigration issue). But they did not, and now it looks disingenuous when they say they will because of national security. Evidenced by the lack of results, even though for the last six years essentially created the atmosphere of fear, and to be very afraid of the enemy outside.

The Barbarians are storming the gates!

President Bush's administration has contended that in the interest of national security, the borders need to be secure. Nevertheless, the results prove otherwise, and based on those results illustrates something is of more importance: access to cheap labor. Some proclaim this as “economic slavery;” that these people have no voice and no choice. Not true and not so. Those who advocate for the illegal alien and the undocumented worker are speaking for them. And for as no choice, these individuals could stay in the conditions they left behind—abject poverty, or they should stay in fight their government to correct institutional corruption and better wages (as some see it).

True enough, but that is not how human nature works. We do what is easy, even though there may be a slightly higher risk temporarily. The slightly higher risk, in the short term (like crossing a border), is outweighed by long term gains. Trying to overhaul, overthrow, Mexican and Central American institutions would require a major portion of time, at the least, and civil war, at the worst.

Moreover, for people who have little already, the risk of such a venture requires a major commitment that proves impractical. In part, administrations of the present and past are in fault of the present conditions of immigration. As mentioned earlier, free trade agreements of this hemisphere has led to the exasperation of the immigration issue. For instance, within these agreements are the inequities of farmer subsidies (see link). Put simply, US farmers yes—and all others no. Thus, creating an unequal competition in what is suppose to be a free trade and free market access agreement.

Another aspect of the free trade (especially in regards to NAFTA) has caused constitutional changes in property rights—citizens’ property rights are now subject to the whim of the state—and now this inequity in trade, in property right, in obtaining a level of subsistence became virtually improbable (see link on NAFTA). This led to greater number of crossings of illegal immigrants with the tacit approval of Mexican government.
This escalation of events (NAFTA, property rights, border crossings, tacit approval) gave the ability of Mexico to boost its economy by subversion and the corruption of the rule of law.

Furthermore, the oversimplification of issues such as illegal immigration, local or otherwise, is more the result of areas of gray than simply black and white. Especially since, as fellow blogger put it, "its little late to close the barn door after all the horses have been let out;" in other words, we are trying to solve a problem that we help create. In this case, we left the door wide open, and now expect to close it.

The other aspect of the illegal immigration debate is just playing on the minutia of the moment. Is it really practical to round up 12 to 40 million immigrants (depending on who is counting), legal or otherwise, and process them out of the country? In fact, the matter may require us to “round up” all Hispanic surnames. Is that realistic? Maybe or maybe not. Do we really want to take the chance? A chance that the rounding up of persons and citizenry will not turn into a perversion of paranoia. It has happened before (see the example of Japanese internment camps). And, is this not the same ethnic cleansing that led Europe to the persecution of Jews, Christians, and Muslims?

To return to point, Louden is correct that these illegal immigrants have broken the law, but is it realistic to ship all to be at the end of the line? And moreover, how can we be assured that we have them all? In addition, are there some laws that are immoral, impractical, and/or out of date (see Martin Luther King letter (link here) from the Birmingham jail to his fellow clergyman)? Nevertheless, there is the possibility of the undocumented worker would go deeper into the shadows, if those have their way in denying access to basic human care.

Simply, enforcing the laws on the books, prosecuting the executives, not the worker, may correct a portion of the problem. And, if one wants to use deny the social service and school angle, would this not create even more of a black market underground economy? Could it possibly create more crimes? In my opinion, the rule of law would be worse. “The two Americas,” of which John Edwards speaks of, may come to full realization. Therefore, increasing the disparity between socioeconomic classes.

UPDATED October 1, 2012

In the fall of 2008, the financial markets collapsed in the midst of president race between then candidate Barack Obama and then candidate John McCain (still Senator of Arizona). AIG (quick link discussion) and (here) and Lehman Brothers financial (here and here) were at critical financial junctures and United States Congress was being briefed on how dire the situation had become and immigration as issue was put on the back  burner.

The democratic and republican nominating conventions had just wrapped up and former governor Sarah Palin as vice presidential was an unknown quantity. The financial crisis became the cornerstone and the anchor of political folly for the opposition party -- the republicans. By mid-October of 2008, however, the quantification of former vice presidential Sarah Palin had come into focus with comedy parody of Tina Fey (video) and the presidential debates between the candidate revealed a pragmatic and cool leader in yet to be elected President Obama (video debates 1, 2, and 3).

After the elections, the financial crisis deepened and the auto industry was on a virtual chopping block. General Motors and Chrysler were hanging by a thread and the realization of how deep the financial crisis impact could not be foreseen for another two years. Despite the stimulus package aka American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that passed in early 2009, the financial crises deepened and multitudes of layoffs resulted in the millions of Americans unable to find employment for more than 99-weeks.  Many undocumented or illegal immigrant workers were unable to find work and in search of better markets places looking for cheaper labor or never crossing the border because of the economic crisis (here). Even, Vice President Joe Biden admitted to Central American leaders that the economic crisis had hurt immigration reform (here).

In fact, in the ensuing years according to the Immigration Custom Enforcment (ICE) agency statistics, under President Obama's administration deported more undocumented workers during its first two fiscal years of 2009 and 2010 combined (782,686) than the President Bush's administration during its last two fiscal years of 2007 and 2008 (660,281). This revelation leaves critics and supporters alike with inexorable conclusion that the present administration enforcement policies maybe sufficient to deter undocumented workers workers; and, that the solution to the immigration policies still need to be addressed.

Furthermore, the advocating of the DREAM Act, and recent failure for it to be passed legislation due to polarization of the parties has hindered the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. The one-time bipartisan bill has been lost in the minutia of political grand standing and the entrenchment of xenophobia and "law and order" types by the far-right fringe of the republican party. The law and order segment admittedly has validity, but it has been used often to obfuscate progress in resolving immigration policy. Yet, movement of the DREAM ACT principles has been transacted by the recent executive order and instruction of President Obama allowing nearly two million undocumented youth to temporarily work and go to college while their citizens status has been deferred.

Finally, as put forth by Louden's initial argument regarding immigration and racism are the obstacles that  has been used to shut down discussions by the political left, but it has also been used by the political right. The political right's excuse to buy into the race discussion has been that racism binds emotional realism to the debate therefore providing a solution has not been knowable and not possible. This, of course, let's the possible solution unresolved. By encasing the immigration issues in emotionalism the discussion get set aside. Candidate, such as Mitt Romney, who panders to the fringes come across as unreasonable and uncaring on immigrant issue.

Immigrant issues Mitt Romney's has impacted the campaign. The fringe right conservatism and fanaticism has left him and the campaign behind in the polling on average of 50 points or more.In the coming years, the latino and latina electorate will change the discussion, possibly by 2016 with Texas shifting to purple or blue: Meaning the high stake state will fluctuate between democratic and republican candidates for president and local and state political representatives representation will shift as well.

The change that is coming in future electorate will determine the future issues of this country. Immigration will be front and center. The 2012 election will determine whether the extremes of the left or right set the agenda in the following years or whether the sanity of pragmatism returns to the political reality.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Conservatism -- The World of Self-Delusion

In the past year or so, it has been apparent that the GOP has failed to realize its potential through facts and persuasive argument. Instead the Republican Party has resorted fear mongering, misinformation, out-of-context lies, and the sabotaging of the economy. For instance, the republican party impotency revealed itself through the tumultuous primary season. A different candidate led every month.

The republican presidential debates came across as an unscripted reality television show. Often the candidates scored political points by attributing the failure and the faults of their rivals. In fact, these republican presidential debates left their conservative audiences with a sense of exultation.  Pandering to the unbridled nature of self-interest the candidates fed their base with a world of self-delusion.

The candidates conveyed extreme viewpoints often spun in partisan rhetoric, delusional commentary to assuage and justify the state of the current economy to the joy of the debate audiences. The selective memory of obstructionism and political rivalry failed to enter the discussion, instead blame, irrationality, and fear of the "other" cultivated the debates. This cultivation of fear and blame of the "other" often pointed toward President Obama, which included the perversion of ill-defined terminology of socialism and governmental expansionism.

The raucous behavior of these candidates and their audiences left the wonderment of nation in a curios befuddlement as each wrapped themselves with patriotic jingoism. The stagecraft of each debate made them surreal, lofty, and extraordinary to the political junkie and to the average conservative citizen weekly entertainment.


Eventually, the republican party found their leader in the candidate of former governor and Bain Capitol CEO Mitt Romney to take on President Obama in the November 2012 election. The Mitt Romney campaign had been efficient in distorting the truth and derailing the competition, yet finding it difficult to run rough shod over President Obama's organization. In part the lackluster nature of Mitt Romney the candidate, Mitt Romney's record leaves most observers cold and disconnected. Romney's most recent likability polls shows him heading in the wrong direction compared to President Obama's (link).

In addition, Mitt Romney's necessity to deny his own record through obfuscation left the candidate with an undefinable core. In part, due to the current state of the republicanism and its "true believers" that require the litmus test of absolution to their extreme ideals Mitt Romney has been unable to moderate his beliefs.

David Frum has cautioned his own party in its rancor on more than one occasion. On Face the Nation, Frum cautioned the republican party ideological bent was not conducive to electoral fall presidential campaign. He argues that for every minute the focus is away from jobs and the economy, the better off President Obama's positioning for winning this fall.

The clip below is unedited, which goes back and forth between talking head punditry and analysis. For instance, Michael Gerson tries impart how the minutia of the Paul Ryan's plan is a political distraction and has no (or should not) have any bearing on electoral politics of the candidates. Gerson tries to tie the similarities of President Obama's and Paul Ryan plans together -- and yet blame the president's plan for harming medicare recipients. Admittedly, both plans bring cuts to medicare but the Paul Ryan reintroduces deficits to the consumer in terms of the prescription drug benefit with repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act.

All rights belong to CBS News August 12, 2012

The argument for this segment of the show's panel of Ruth Marcus, Michael Gerson, Bob Shrum, David Frum, and Roger Simon came down to likability. Roger Simon makes this point clear that basically, almost all, elections have come down to a candidate being likable. This weekend Mitt Romney chose his vice president in Paul Ryan and the fact the pundits felt this choice was to solidify the conservative base after some blunders by the Romney campaign and some political gaffes by his staff. For example, prior to the Paul Ryan selection, the ever vitriolic pundit for Fox News, Anne Coulter stated that Andrea Saul should be fired for not properly defending Mitt Romney against a third-party superPac that never aired until after the raucous complaining of the political right media. Coulter proclaimed that all donations should be withheld and it was a waste of time for Fox News to support Mitt Romney because of the candidate and campaign incompetency.

The clip below is unedited, be aware of the hot rhetoric talk to follow by Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity, which will blame President Obama for the ad content by Priorities USA Action, a pro SuperPac for President Obama. The President is accused of being untrustworthy, a liar, and deceptive. Both pundits proclaim how he is responsible for what is being said by the ad. Both, of course, fail to mention that no coordination between the SuperPac, and the actual campaign are suppose to happen. Nevertheless, the Priorties USA Action had not aired until it was plastered across by the cable networks, and, then later aired in the swing states of Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and the Internet (video link here)

The reaction from the conservative pundits and the Wall Street Journal editorial board was virtually lost in despair and fret. The floundering Romney campaign, after the series of missteps at the beginning of the week for August 6 2012, needed to be redefined and establish core values where there had not been any before --- or at least it appeared that way to the Washington Belt-way media, both liberal and conservative, and the voting public. Paul Ryan selection implicitly established Mitt Romney backbone -- and his doubling down on supply side economics.

The delusion of supply-side economic comes in the form that it lacks revenue neutrality. In essence, robbing Peter to pay Paul has short-term gain, but over the long-term deficits continue to grow. As an example, under President Ronald Reagan a supply-side guru deficits grew nearly four times of  that President Jimmy Carter's. Meanwhile, under President George H.W. Bush the deficits leveled off more than $200 billion dollars. It is not until President Bill Clinton that the deficit was reduced and even had surplus afterward he left office -- only to have 180 degree turnaround a year later after President G. W. Bush took office (OMB table link) and to have twice the budget deficits of President George H. W. Bush and to have nearly 20 times the deficit of President Harry Truman in 1944.

Now, due to the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, the deficit has grown 80 times that of 1944 deficit. This due  to the fact the supply-side economics of 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the deregulation of the financial service industry and banks, and governmental spending programs of the last decade, the wars of Afghanistan, Iraq, and unofficial actions in Pakistan. Moreover, the last three-and-half years of governmental spending has been an attempt to replace the monies lost from the financial breakdown of 2008 and 2009. In addition to these factors, a  governmental branch has placed politics over governing. The polarization over values, politics, and governing has left the public wanting for leadership.

The lack of leadership from both democratic and republican parties and to some degree by President Obama, but the obstructionism by republicans has been cancerous and selfish. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell prior to and directly after the midterm 2010 elections, declared that his and GOP political goal was to make President Obama an one-term president. The GOP did not want to assist President Obama in creating jobs, help the economy, or aid in the financial recovery of the average American citizen. Instead, the GOP believed it was (and is) more politically beneficiary to obstruct and disable the economy for their political gain to return the presidency to republican hands.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This display of partisanship did not give the President or Americans an opportunity to take a breath from the outcomes of the midterms. This partisanship should not have surprised anyone, the filibuster in the United States Senate had been used more than anytime in history.The cloture votes, a parliamentary procedure, has brought new level of obstructionism to government and left a government barely working while smoldering in the ashes of political polarization.

The delusion and spin out of the "loyal opposition" party (republicans) has not been about providing a coherent argument and alternative policies, but dismantling and stalling improvement to the economy.  In September of 2011, President Obama proposed the American Jobs Act, a plan to boost the economy and to get people working again. Admittedly, part of this proposal was to politically position President Obama for presidential campaign for 2012, but it also was opportunity for the "loyal opposition party" to engage in policy. Instead, the self-delusion of political mandates and overzealous projection for fiscal correction overtook the core of the republican party.

The overzealous political actors, referred to as the Tea Party caucus within republican party, felt endowed by divine providence to correct the financial failings of a nation. In addition, the republican party felt it had a mandate to fix morality of unjust acts by liberal activists. One of the first legislative acts, of the United States House of  Representative was the passage of  H. R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion, and during the debate the House republican tried to redefine the definition of forcible rape (link here).


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The United States House of Representatives demonstrative hard turn right impacted governing and risked a near financial collapse of United States credit worthiness. It did not matter to the new core republicans, the Tea Party, that past presidents, such as republican icon President Ronald Reagan had co-operated with democratic party in bipartisan manner. Nor did it matter that their most recent occupant, President George W. Bush had bipartisan co-operation. What matter most to these zealots was that fiscal restraint had to be imposed. If that meant the collapsing of the United States credit worthiness, then so be it.



US House Republicans, such as Michele Bachmann, who stated that if the United States was to default on paying its bill no resulting impact would affect the country (link). Partisan veteran groups, such as OPSEC, that is anonymously funded by GOP benefactors and  has Tea Party support overtly propagandize President Obama as ungrateful for the support personnel that aided or took out Osama bin Laden. OPSEC asserts that the President Obama takes credit for the killing of Osama bin Ladin without thanking the many men and women who helped track down America's terrorist boogeyman.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It is these delusional perspectives, such as the one by OPSEC and Michele Bachmann, that brings heartburn to the general public. The obfuscation of facts and reality watched events, such as the president's announcements of the killing of Osama bin Laden, the ceiling debt crisis, and the financial collapse of 2008 and 2009, has radicalized the political electorate and in turn propagated a world of self-delusion among conservative activists. Conservatism, in the twenty-first century, is belied in a world of delusion, paranoia, and outright lies. The cognitive dissonance that regulates the normality for the American ethos in pragmatism has become skewed and off kilter. 

The body of the electorate has become stuck mentally, physically (in the way it takes action), and financially because the true 'clash of civilization' is not within the realm of Samuel Huntington, but in the 'clash of inequities' among the post-modern civilizations.In essence, the have's and the have-not's, in terms of populism, access, opportunity, and financial security leaves a population wanting and envious.

A Sunrise to Come: The Rise of the Community Democracy

Editor's note 2.0 Some time ago I lost my primary blog due to web hosting crash and was unable to recover a lot of my writings. However, through time and effort, along with support of friends, colleagues, and like minded acquaintances, I have been able recover a good portions of my writing through the Internetarchive.org Waybackmachine. So here is a recovered posting that I found recently. This posting was originally published 10/23/2007...
 
There are many life things in life that one tries to guarantee, and many that we cannot. Nevertheless, as humans we strive to obtain certain sustainable lifeways so that we reproduce and produce our own unique brand of reality.

There are certain inalienable rights for all sentient beings that we as ‘individuals’ and we as a ‘community’ try to replicate in an effort to bring structure and order to the perceived perception of life. Some view life as hostile, where it is competitive and destructive, and inevitably intolerant of one’s existence. On the other hand, some view life as away to celebrate creation, benevolent, striving for order, and seeking a way for the structure of life to be embolden and tolerant of one’s existence.

Both of these views are ideas that are projected (displaced) on and away from reality in order for their existence to take hold from within and from without our minds. But in order to succeed with our ideas (whether it is from an individual aspect, or one that replicated in the community), one has to provide a form of validation, in order for the acceptance to be embarked (entered) into reality, and this is done by narration and deployment (DVND).

Francis Lappe Moore
We by nature, whether as an individual or as group, community, or nation-states need a narrative, a story, if you will, to propel forward beyond one’s rational reasoning to go beyond our basic instinct of survival, which gives ‘us’ (as one or as a group) away to deploy (or redeploy) our ideas at large.

These “Ideas, says Frances Moore Lappe, “are greater than the instinct of life.” And, by implication she is saying this is what separates us from the animal kingdom world. Our ability to view the world through abstraction and disconnect give us (or one) the ability to supersede the animal instinct within the human condition. It gives us the ability to adapt, like a virus[1], which infests nature through its ability to modify the nature world for its own means.

This ability has led humanity beyond, some believe, its carrying capacity. In other words, we as a species are living beyond the means in which Nature can support humanity. If not for our technology, humanity would have been in check. In spite of all of this, Lappe believes that at large the industrialized world is “manufacturing scarcity”; that food production is “inefficient”; and, that the economic, means of production, and means of reproduction are entangled in the way we(one) think/s.

She believes that America and (possibly) that all of Western society is headed toward another Gilded Age, similar to the 1920s, where the haves and the have not’s are separated by a great disparity. She spoke on how private industry has corrupted the democratic process away from the individual, away from the people, and how violations of rights were being stripped away, if you will, by this concentration of power.

Lappe believes that we, as a society, are tolerant of this because of the feeling of being powerless; incapable of changing the system; and, that nothing one does will make a difference. In essence, we have “bought” into this idea, told ourselves a story, and regurgitated (redeployed) it over and over again; in that we feel that we don’t have enough. This is in turn leads to our appetite of consumerism, leads to competition, and leads us to be selfish accumulators; only worrying about ourselves (Lappe, 2007)[2]. It is this way of believing that has led to our present state of “depression” both as individuals and as a society—a cultural ennui— if you will, that leads one to despair, and the sense of powerlessness. It is the concentration of power that inculcates our Pavlovian response to the present institutions of democracy—in which we (one) has surrendered personal liberty and responsibility to the “greedy” and the “materialistic” members of society (Lappe, 2007).

However, these ideas can be changed, says Lappe. In that there is a “revolution of hope”; in that, “human beings are not just selfish accumulators”; and, that we are “richly complex” beings who need to accept that we are both good and bad. In effect, change our perspective, reclaiming and shifting the story, by redistributing and returning the power to the people. Thus, the concentration of power is therefore “widely dispersed” in what Lappe refers to as the living democracy.

This living democracy is a place where the sense of fair play rules. Where community works together not only on the group level, but on the individual level as well; this is a place where humanity is aligned with Nature. And, this is a place where one is not just contributing to the global market, but to the local market place in the community. This is done through creating co-operatives and communities that hold ‘responsible and responsive’ corporations to the tasks of sharing the interest of the people.

A living democracy purports Lappe, is active within local and national politics; so that the power is distributed widely to the citizenry and that supports Restorative Justice and the Fair Trade Agreements in which people are dealt with respect and on an individual level that provides dignity, and honor to all. A living democracy provides it citizenry with a living wage. It provides hope instead of despair and fear. In a greater sense, it is a vehicle of the “possible,” the shifting of norms and renaming them. And, a living democracy raises the community up and incorporates the sense of purpose says Lappe. It is the instilling of new ideas and replacing the old ones even renaming them.

And, it is the renaming in which the living democracy strives. Turning those items and institutions on its edge and looking at them from them opposite end. It is also its flaw. By renaming one can admit certainly a differing point of view, but one may not end with a differing result. In addition, once one is aware of this renaming does not one question the root of what a living democracy is? Is this not democratic socialism renamed, made more palatable for the consumption of the American establishment and the citizenry?  She spoke of checks and balances of power, wide distribution of that power, and the mutual responsibility in regards to that power. Interweaving the ideas of co-operatives and introducing the suggestion that the media is failing to report these success stories in lieu of the realization that they may be a better model out there.

Nevertheless, Lappe is correct, the changing of the story is necessary in order to shift the perspective from fear to hope. It is fear that makes us small and constricts our ability to change and search for new alternatives and different ideas. It is hope and our belief that emboldens us to look outward, and diversify the world around us. And, it is our ability displace, validate, narrate, and (re)deploy (DVND) that enable us to bring these ideas to our reality, into our consciousness, and to override the “instinct of life.” It is also ability to see that the rise of the community democracy is peaking over the horizon awaiting its turn and its return to the beacon of liberty.

[1] In the movie The Matrix, a character referred to as Agent Smith tells one of the protagonist, Moebas, within the story of how humanity is like a virus.
[2] This is a basic summation one of Frances Moore Lappe points in her speech at St. Catjeans Church on the Auraria Campus on October 22, 2007.  

Evolution Review: The Beginning[1]

Editor's note 2.0 Some time ago I lost my primary blog due to web hosting crash and was unable to recover a lot of my writings. However, through time and effort, along with support of friends, colleagues, and like minded acquaintances, I have been able recover a good portions of my writing through the Internetarchive.org Waybackmachine. So here is a recovered posting that I found recently. This posting was originally published August 26, 2007.

Editor’s Note – As some of you know, I am earning my masters in anthropology. I have taken my core courses, now I am taking my courses for my major. This is the good stuff. The stuff of magic, if you will, at any rate, from time to time I will post my papers here. This will give me an outlet during the semester to express myself, and it will give you the reader an opportunity to view my musings (assignments) and insight to theory of anthropology being taught.

The following is a response paper to a series of readings for my class Foundation of Cultural Anthropology at the University Colorado Denver. In the nineteenth century, anthropology was beginning to find itself, evolution, and the inner workings of psychology and sociology as well. In essence, the birth of social sciences brought the Age of Enlightenment to its apex. These series of reading is a review of this period, beginning with Charles Darwin’s evolution hypothesis, Herbert Spencer on culture or came to be known as social Darwinism, and then finally Alfred Russell Wallace’s on his perspectives of evolution.

End Editor's Notes


Charles Darwin
In the first of series of readings, titled, Nineteenth-Century Evolutionism lays out trains of thoughts, an overview, if you will, of the natural world, which was later used as an implied tool socially. These trains of thoughts led to modernity, which in turn, set the course of humanity better understanding in how the world worked around them. This period of understanding resulted twofold: First, with the Age of Industrialization of the European and American continents by way of Age of Enlightenment coming to full force. And second, the modernization of not only technology, but of rational thought.

Once the observers of nature accepted the principle of the scientific method, it was a matter of time before the conscious questioning of one’s surroundings would take hold. In that, in the face of God may not necessarily be questioned, but Nature itself could be, and now was mutable.
In the latter half of the first reading, as mentioned earlier, the discourse shifted from the natural world to the social development of humanity. This viewing was seen, especially through the guise of ethnocentric perspective of Western-American culture. In so being that, human civilization mimicked nature in not only in “fitness”[2] but the evolvement of cultural mores and attitudes. Some viewed this, evolutionary mimicry, as the conflict-struggle; a necessity to prune the weakest from society. Herbert Spencer believed that “the Survival of the Fittest,”[3] that competition provided the best “adaptation” of a society.

In the second reading, “The Social Organism,” by Herbert Spencer, did a comparative analysis of nature and society. In essence, he had taken a metaphor of what occurred within nature and used it as a template to ascribe and describe society as a living organism. He purported that base societies, such as aboriginal cultures, were low, primitive, in that they lacked complexity. Whereas, the more complex societies, such as the Western-American cultures of his time, were evolutionarily superior because of the complex social nature of them.

Herbert Spencer
Therefore, the layering, intricacies, and distribution of tasks, and group labors weaved the development of the culture and defined its complexity from the objective observer standpoint. In other words, to the outside observer, lack of structure, interconnectedness, represented the simplicity and primitive characteristics of an organism or a culture. Herbert Spencer’s, The Social Organism, gave the perspective of why things were, and how cultures evolved to a complex society. By way of explanation, he compared, analyzed, defended, and critiqued elements with the analogous essay of how cultures were an organism that evolved from the simple to the complex, and were living, in that, through the surrounding environs attuned (sharpened) to the development of the construct of a society. Essentially, the social organism, (the society as a whole), will inevitably develop through the eventuation of conflict and struggle from the community within. In so being that, those in power, and those who did the bidding, are in battle, in struggle, for resources, to find the fittest. Thus, Spencer’s analogy of culture gave anthropology a way to examine and criticize the dynamic of capitalism as well as the industrialism along the twin sisters of expansionist imperialism and colonialism.

In the third reading is an accounting of the events of the true public discourse regarding natural selection. There are letters from Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace and their advocates[4]. These two gentlemen speculated, theorized, on how variations within a species occurred. Both shared this independently of each other of how these occurred within a species over time. Darwin primarily illustrated his introspection through how gradualism asserted this change along with “fitness”[5] of the species through adaptation and selection which allowed a species to continue. In effect, the ability of the species to propagate and allowed its continuation. Darwin’s and Wallace’s accounting set the train of thoughts of how the interaction of environment was crucial to a species.

Alfred Russell Wallace
In the telling of this view, Wallace did a better overall illustration of how “fitness” and “survival” of a species worked through selection. Wallace’s discourse (and also Darwin) took into account sexual selection (how and when mating species interacts with the opposite sex), but he, Wallace, more clearly understood the birth-death rate ratio and food resources that kept a population in check. His example of the passenger pigeon eerily represented his model versus other birds.

Wallace espouses that fundamentally the passenger pigeon fitness was key to its population abundance. In so being that, the passenger pigeon access to food resources, because of its strong fly ability, enabled it to have steady increase in terms of population, despite its low birth rate of hatchlings. Nevertheless, it is the access to food resources (along with the bird’s fecundity) that enabled the species survival. For the passenger pigeon, however, it is also why it became extinct. The added outside pressure to its survival: agriculture, hunting, and its use it during World War I eventuated its demise because of its low birth rate.

In summary, the three reading gave an overall perspective of the nineteenth century thinking of how they viewed the world. The Enlightenment Period was coming to full fruition. The rationalization beyond what “God” told us through the interpretation of frailty of our own moral introspection, but what in the observed, the tested and proven tangibility led to the discourse of the inner workings of life. These models later gave the culture-at-hand away of examining itself. The process of which led to the eventual modernization of the planet through expansionism, nationalism, colonialism, and imperialism.

Some viewed these events as inevitable, evolutionary and explainable, in that they fell under Providence. In so being that, it was our duty to bring to the world modernity, because of our fitness through strength and technology. Therefore, inherently our superiority was by creed, by race, and by religiosity enabled us to bring the primitive cultures enlightenment (at least that was how some viewed it, of Darwin’s and Wallace’s contribution at the time). To be sure, the politics of the day, the social mores, and era of scientific discovery led to the culmination of human modernity of today.




[1] The readings referred to throughout this posting came primarily from R. Jon McGee’s, Richard L. Warms’ reader “Anthropology Theory: An Introduction History 3rd and 4th Edition.”

[2] This word is being used as Darwin and Wallace intended to mean for natural selection. However, this word would be later used by Herbert Spencer in his treatment and apology for capitalism and the creation of its effects. He believed that the Victorian England was atop of modernity and “evolutionary scale.”

[3] According to the authors McGee and Warms, it was Herbert Spencer who coined the term the “Survival of the Fittest, and was then later used by Charles Darwin as a chapter title in his fifth edition of the Origin of the Species. Spencer throughout his essay advocates that the social organism is progressive. In that, cultures are grow, from low to high. In so being that, aboriginal societies were low, and that Victorian England at the time, was high.

[4] This particular reading can be found in the third of McGee and Warms anthropology reader, Anthropology Theory: An Introduction History 3rd Edition. . The essay titled, On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. Sir Charles Lyell and J. D. Hooker advocated for Charles Darwin to have his Origin of the Species published first, since he had for years consulted with them his ideas of natural selection prior to Wallace approaching Darwin for his opinion independently (McGee and Warms, 3rd Edition, pp. 11-24).

[5] Take note that also part of “fitness” for a species for Darwin and Wallace also included sexual selection. Sexual selection is the mates’ ability to attract the other; the males ability to sing a song, or display colors for instance as in a peacock.