Some Tough Questions on Balance

I often find myself torn between the extremes of full government intervention and absolute private individual activity when thinking about issues related to distributive justice and the allocation of resources. Like many others, I have come to understand the major mistakes and faultiness of Communist systems. It seems to me that these systems collapsed primarily because they (1) tried to over-regulate human economic (and other) behavior that is often too hard to predict and constrain, and (2) didn’t offer the right incentives towards individual progress and development, namely, failing to reward ingenuity and creativity and failing to instill a sense of personal responsibility in contributions to society. But I often find myself questioning the merits of a global capitalism that has seemingly gone haywire and which has in many instances failed to produce the foreseen or aspired promises.

There is no doubt in my mind that capitalism is one of the most logical systems of organizing human behavior towards efficiency and prosperity. But what if capitalistic attitudes and conducts generates externalities that grossly outweigh any foreseeable benefits? What if private individual activity, while assuming that it is undertaken to promote self-interest, instead leads one to get lost in, or confused by, self-interest so much that perspectives and observations on where we stand and where we want (or need) to go are no longer reached with the clarity required to move towards progress, development, prosperity, or even sustainability and survival? What if, as a result, multiple market failures converge to the point where what once seemed to be balance and level-headedness vanish? What if personal and social responsibility are forsaken for profits while the whole gamut of political, social, and economic systems have been so heavily titled towards free-market philosophy end of the spectrum that checks and balances set up in these very same systems fail to reasonably protect the average individual and the society as a whole? What if short-term thinking has so heavily predominated over more longer-term considerations that we have actively made so many mistakes and failed to take so many crucial actions that we have set ourselves on a terrible course that may not be reversible and we have realized it only too late?

I guess what I am pondering here is: what is the right mix of political and socio-economic philosophy and activity, and how can we reach it? With the world seemingly in a state of increased polarizations of wealth, access to opportunities, influence, power, ideas/positions, and so on, these questions take on more significance. These questions may also be significant in light of the recent financial meltdowns and the propelling of other calamities, quagmires, and conflicts facing us. Their answers and resolutions will certainly have far-reaching implications whether these implications become visible or not.

Newsflash: Obama Cracks 3 Southern Strongholds

The final results are in. Nearly after a full day of tallying, North Carolina reports that Obama has beaten McCain in a razor-tight race, according to National Public Radio's main website. The popular vote in the Tarheel State delivered a slim, but nonetheless significant, victory to the Democratic candidate, for a state that has traditionally voted predominately Republican and Conservative at the Federal level. In terms of percentages of the popular vote, NPR reports a dead-split even (50-50) between the two major presidential contenders. In actual estimated figures, these numbers run around 2,123,334 to 2,109,281 for Obama and McCain respectively, a difference of slightly more than 14,000 votes. Similar outcomes hold for two other traditionally Republican and Conservative Southern strongholds that are electorally significant in their own right: Virginia (52-47) and Florida (51-48)

'Smearcasting'--A New Report by FAIR

A part and byproduct of the election year has been political rhetoric--from statements and vows to characterizations and assertions--thrown around by and among various persons and bodies. While political rhetoric is only natural exercise integral to the civil discourse process, it seems that unfortunately some dubious rhetoric has crept into the scene. This rhetoric is not controversial and disturbing merely as tactics aiming to fulfill the political/electoral passions and aspirations of some, but more frighteningly it may have amplifications and ripple-effects on a more long-term basis after the conclusion of the election year and inauguration of a new Administration regardless of whomever takes the helm and whichever form that Administration takes. It is reasonable to expect that attitudes, opinions, and mannerisms of public discourse themselves, to outlast public office terms and to have the ability to influence the selection of future leaders.

One of the most disturbing trends evidenced in reoccurring bits throughout this election year has been attention on Muslims and Islam (directed to by some) in inflated, exaggerated, and inflamed tones and manners. This attention has been constructed both in blunt and implied terms. And of the one most prominent and clear examples of such misleading to have surfaced has the been the attempt to link presidential candidate Barack Obama to his cultural heritage and past in a conspicuous effort to raise doubt--and even suspicion--to his legitimacy and trustworthiness as he vies for the highest elected office in the land. What many may not realize is that, when a major candidate is being accused of being of "closeted" member of a particular ethnic or religious group, ultimately the main victims of the fallout and aftermath of such rhetoric will not be the targeted candidate or his/her campaign. In the larger scheme of things, public office-seekers enter through, and exit out of, their office's doors, serving either limited terms, being eventually challenged and defeated by rivalling candidates, or leaving the post in retirement or resignation.

And yes, many discussions continue about the impacts that candidates and officials have had or continue to have long after they leave office. But what may often be more enduring is the discourse and tone within which all of this occurs, and so I come back to the main premise--the implicit and explicit characterizations of, and allusions to, Muslims and Islam that has found its way throughout the current election environment. With the effect of self-righteously conjuring up emotions of uncertainty, fear, and even those bordering or crossing into paranoia that are likely to be exercised without, or in spite of, calm measured and rational discussion and reflection, the culpable tone is aptly called "islamophobia." Below is a link to a newly released report on this trend. It is important to note that the prejudices (and stereotypes) that are behind or that are likely to cause "islamophobia" are not new, as such simplistically distorted views have existed for quite some time (for example, one can extend Professor Jack Shaheen's arguments in his pioneering study Reel Bad Arabs). Similarly, concerns from Arabs and Muslims regarding the growth of a prejudiced or uneasy atmosphere towards them have been aired from time to time over the past several years, as hate crimes have spiked. What is significant is that non-Muslims and non-Arabs are beginning to accept that such challenges exist, as evidenced by the release of this aforementioned report by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Though much remains to be done, the release of these report is a welcome and refreshing development, a milestone in the right direction.

FAIR has created a website specifically devoted for the report at:
http://www.smearcasting.com/