Tag Archives: politics

And onto the third and final round of The Hundreds presents POLITIXXX, an industry roundtable for the Street/wear community with five players dishing out their opinions on the upcoming U.S. presidential elections: Alyasha Owerka-Moore, Donny of Pharmacy, Mear One, Mike Brown of True, and Graham of Versus.

If you haven’t already, read Round 1 and Round 2 of POLITIXXX, and if you haven’t, it’s all good!

What I was really trying to do here was to impress upon our reader the importance and value of informing one’s self on political affairs, socially conscious issues that really do matter, genuinely affecting your everyday life. A nice change of pace from the usual Streetwear-speak.  Hopefully the speech wasn’t too complicated or alienating for you guys, and you either learned something here or were inspired to know more.

And here we go…

8. American politics have always been dominated by two parties, the Republicans and Democrats.  But with the inner turmoil of the Republican party, splintering off into so many extremist factions, as well as the Democrats losing their ground, do you foresee the possibility of a competitive third party?

Alyasha: Americans are too set in their ways and too Attention Deficit to be able to even think about or acknowledge another party.  Not to mention that the good old boys on either side would make it almost impossible for any new party to get a leg up. This is precisely why you have “Independents” flip-flopping between parties to get elected.

Donny: If the major media covered all parties equally and unbiased, or didn’t exist, then another party would win by a landslide. The majority of people want freedom and limited government but don’t realize they are voting for big government if they vote for most candidates in either party.

Mear One: It seems inevitable that a third, and fourth, and fifth party may arise in this country as soon as one of these parties just completely collapses and makes a horrible mistake – and we’re on that verge right now. The Republicans pretty much, it seems since George Bush Sr., have been a bunch of circus clowns. I mean, George Bush Sr. was a scary government official who headed the CIA… It seems that the Republican candidates are a bunch of psychopathic circus clowns – everyone from Sarah Palin to John McCain, the list just goes down the road. To think that God intended women to be raped, and just mad crazy thoughts that come out of these people’s minds… I think that the only way that we are going to fix problems in this country is to get away from a two-party system, because it will diversify [our politics]. Another problem we have is the fact that money is involved in our government and our legislative system. That continues to support the two-party system and it continues to keep politics fallacies. There’s no real politics taking place – it’s banking that’s taking place, it’s slavery that’s taking place, and people’s lives being destroyed. And no one [is] seeming to want to respond to that yet in this country.

Mike: No I do not.  So much power and wealth have been, and continue to be, consolidated in the hands of the top corporations and individuals, that there’s no way a competitive third party will emerge unless they want it to.

Graham: There will never be a competitive third party unless it courts corporate money, in which case it will end up no different than the two we have now, or it rises to power through pure crowd-sourced funding.  Money rules all.  That being said, I think there is room for a platform to arise that does not subscribe to the existing concepts of left and right. That takes into account a perspective that isn’t entrenched in the social and financial issues that were born out of the middle of last century.  We will likely see one within the next couple decades.

__________________________________________

9. The economy and foreign policy are the hot-button issues in this campaign, but the environment is the red-headed stepchild here.  Should environmental policies play a bigger or lesser role in determining who becomes our next President?

Alyasha: Environmental issues should completely play a larger role in who becomes the next president, unfortunately people do not see how solar energy, ethanol, or wind power will effect their take-home pay. People largely think in the NOW as opposed to long term.

Donny: No, honesty and integrity should be most important. Ron Paul has a 100% consistent, constitutional, voting track record going back to 1976 when he first went to congress. That is what you swear to do under oath when you take office. If you support something unconstitutional then you should be done or blackballed by the people.

Mear One: I think that the issues that take place should never be separated so far that it becomes about whether this one issue should determine anything or not. Racism, global war, economic collapse, the ecological system, the way we treat our planet – these are all equally valid as one another. They’re all interconnected, too. Chopping someone’s forest down – destroying another part of the world – is closely linked to racism. Having no respect for someone’s country or culture, or having no respect for the fact that people use this land in a certain way – that’s racist. It has no respect for them. It has no respect for their history. So I think that all these issues are synonymous of one another, and they all need to be addressed equally.

Mike: Bigger.  As resources become scarce over time, those countries with the foresight to address their own environmental policies now will not have to compete with the rest of the world for whatever oil is left in the future.  We had the chance to do that by electing Al Gore 12 years ago, but the American public’s unawareness prevented that from happening.  You reap what you sow, it’s too late now.

Graham: Bigger. There is more need than ever to be pragmatic with the finite resources and open spaces that we have left on this earth. But first, it needs to be said that all environmentalism is about the U.S., not the earth. The earth can sustain itself, and we as humans aren’t going to destroy it, even if we kill off 99% of the life on here, including ourselves. The earth will continue spinning and natural selection and evolution will create a new ecosystem from there. However, we will fuck up our own experience while we exist here. Not only do we not want to live in a dump, we won’t have the amazingly inspiring creations of nature to experience. We also depend on the natural resources to maintain our industry and way of life, and those resources are not infinite. For example, if you don’t recycle, more oil needs to be pumped in order to make the plastic that keeps fresh the leftovers that you shouldn’t have made so much of in the first place. Eventually that will run out and you won’t be able to make plastic without recycling or creating it out of cellulose. It’s smart to head the problem off before it becomes too big. But at the same time it needs to be done without a panic or frenzy.

Environmental protection policies are often attacked for having a negative effect on our economy or being too frivolous. Which, in certain cases is true. But the majority of the concepts about conservation and sustainability are not always as frivolous as the Republicans would like to paint it as. Sure, you can have a stronger economy in the short term in a sense by letting companies pollute because it keeps costs of cleanup down or consume resources without sustainability simply because it’s available. But the side effects of that sprout up elsewhere, which affect the economy negatively. Lower property values near places of industry or commerce which can lead to more regulation and lawsuits (NIMBY’s anyone?). Higher health care costs which divert funds from local economies to insurance companies, which hurts local schools and services. A polluted sky and natural area produces a generally less happy population, which does not equate to a harder working population, which affects job performance, which effects bottom lines.

So yes, protecting the enevironment is very important. Problem is no one addresses protecting the environment outside of the standard, “I want to have a forest to enjoy for myself and my kids” or “Coastal California will be underwater” (which is fine by me, I’ll stock up on inland land now and reap the rewards later).

__________________________________________

10. What it really comes down to in this presidential race is that the economy is wrecked.  Obama says he’s actuated some change, but was left with a mess that will take at least another 4 years to wade through.  A vote for Romney would mean another vote for Bush’s old policies that got us into this situation to begin with.  Romney, however, defends that Obama has had 4 years already to fix this mess and a vote for Barack would mean just more of the same.  Basically, everyone’s in agreement that the economy sucks, but it’s the other person’s fault that it is the way it is.  

Do you think anyone could have resolved this mess the past 4 years?  Can either of these guys be the ones to do it in the next 4 years?  Or are we talking about an issue that is so much larger than the presidency that we’re all fixating on the wrong issues and platform here?

Alyasha:  Ask Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers. <— INSIDIOUS SCHMUCKS.  What people fail to realize is that with EITHER candidate, we will be fucked for at least the next 4-8 years due to what the GW Bush administration left us with in his 8 years of office. I’d rather weather the storm with someone who gives a fuck. Anyone who thought that anyone would be able to turn the destroyed economy around in 4 years is a damn fool. People fail to realize that during the Bush administration, we were already in a depression, the bubble had just not popped yet. Shit is not going to get noticeably better for a long while, so put your rain jackets on kids.  Corporations are not persons/people.  Why are there so few people to have signed this petition?

GET UP, GET INTO IT, GET INVOLVED! GET INVOLVED! GET INVOLVED! GET INVOLVED!

Donny: The biggest single problem in our country is the Federal Reserve Bank. That is a private bank owned by private bankers that have complete control of our currency. The last president to try and get rid of the Fed was JFK. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was the worst thing to date for our country. It gave control of the U.S. Dollar to private hands. So honestly at this point since things are so corrupt it does not matter if you vote or who you vote for. The electronic voting system can be easily manipulated if needed. Voting on local politics is more important at this point.

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws.” — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1913

Mear One: It’s definitely bigger than the Presidency – I don’t think that that’s accurate. But, I think what we’re not focusing on is the bank’s relationship to the federal government and our politicians, and how that relationship has been formed and how it’s maintained. We have lobbying in our government where it doesn’t matter what we voted for, another country can send a bunch of lobbyists through to lobby us with finances and convince us to change their minds after something’s already been voted into policy. So, lobbying and having money influence politics is really where the problem comes from – it has nothing to do with who the President is. It’s the broken system, and the broken system is capitalism once again. And capitalism is just a greedy –ism… It doesn’t have any soul to it, it doesn’t have a cultural, historic respect involved in it’s process. It [capitalism] just crunches numbers and destroys peoples’ lives, or makes idiots millionaires overnight. Also, Obama had the opportunity to change some things when the House and Senate were both Democrat, before they became Republican rule. And so, we should’ve also let the banks crash. That would’ve started up a new banking system. That could’ve changed things. Yes, the President can change some things; but I think, once again, it’s a larger issue of the system. And I think the system’s just failing us, bottom line.

Mike: We are talking about an issue that is much larger than the presidency here. Fixing the economy involves fundamental changes in most of our cherished institutions that members of both political parties seem unwilling to do. Do your own research, look up Bowles-Simpson. Fixing the economy will involve two, most likely all three branches of government and will take much longer than 4 years. In Obama’s first term the Legislative branch led by the opposing political party enacted a policy of not working with the Executive branch as much as possible. We are fixating on the wrong issues and platform here, but none of us, especially politicians, are in the habit of enacting policies that we won’t see immediate results to.

The real problem is the planet is overpopulated but I never hear anyone talk about it…

Graham: Neither one of their policies will make the market come back any faster. They might take slightly different courses, but our economy is so tied to the rest of the world now, that it is impossible to have a drastic effect. Economies on a whole are fueled by public mood. Unfortunately our economy is largely sales and service revenue based now.

In the 70′s, domestic labor costs had risen past the point of fair living wages to the point where the goods being manufactured stateside could not remain profitable and match the prices the public wanted to pay for them, so companies started outsourcing manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor. Similarly, we’re seeing a similar shift with China’s rising labor costs- a sizeable amount of factories are moving farther south to less developed nations to keep the costs down.

As a result of this we do not have much left in the way of manufacturing to fuel our economy, so our economic health, and subsequently, availability of jobs, depends on the public buying things, and paying others to do things for them. Sure we can have companies based here that bring in money, such as the case with Silicon Valley, but on a whole that does not keep the entire boat afloat. The catch is that if there are little available jobs, then there is less spending money, which means the economy remains depressed. It’s a vicious circle. That’s why George W. told everyone to “Keep Shopping” after 9-11. Thats why supporters of Keynesian Economics like the current admin support the idea of flooding the market with government money to keep funds passing through public hands.

I think the biggest part of the problem is the unwillingness of the majority of the American public to look at themselves as being part of the problem that resulted in the economy crashing. That’s like saying its a casino’s fault that someone lost their paycheck. As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted. Sure, the government fucked with regulations and interest rates that allowed for manipulation of lending practices and a distorted sense of market growth, but that doesn’t exonerate the legions of dumbasses who gambled on rising property values as if it was going to continue forever. I should know, I was one of them. Anyone in public office who dares to say that the public has any sort of responsibility in this situation gets skewered by the public so no one ever does. Would it soften the blow if the government required the banks to forgive bad mortgages? Perhaps. But is that ethically proper? No more than the bailout of the banks, who didn’t deserve it either.

Kicking off the second round of our industry roundtable on the upcoming United States presidential election, we’re gonna get into some of the more meatier issues now.  In case you missed yesterday’s discussion with five voices from our community, click here to read Round 1 of The Hundreds presents POLITIXXX.

People have been asking why there isn’t enough diversity in the viewpoints, particularly why there aren’t any Romney supporters in the mix.  You have to remember that the vast majority of people in our scene are on the left, so finding a Republican is a challenging task, let alone one who will publicize his opinion here on the blog (I really tried).  But if you read the answers, you’ll see how all five differ (as you’ve already seen, they’re not all Obama diehards) – no two are of the like mind across the board.

That goes to show you the best part about being an American – to be able to have your own subjective opinion on political issues big and small, and to be able to express them without fear.  Without further ado…

4. Speaking of which, Time Magazine recently published a cover story on how regularly and casually both candidates are lying throughout their campaigns.  Subsequently, it seems as if the public has little care for fact-checking.  Do the facts matter anymore?  Or is it just about how persuasive a candidate’s image is mediated?

Alyasha: It is absolutely due to how the candidates’ images are mediated. Facts completely matter, but most folks just want to follow.  Fact-checking takes too much work for these lazy fucks. Largely, they are too busy looking for cheap shit on Plndr and trying to be “Cool” or worrying about who is sleeping with Kim Kardashian now. (Watch MSNBC or America’s got Talent… You chose.)

Donny: Facts do matter but people do not vote based on what politicians do, vote on or against, or keep the promise they made before they took office, which is to do everything in their power to uphold the constitution. Most people have no clue about candidates’ voting track records.

Mear One: Well, of course facts matter to people who care. The problem is that most people don’t care and they just take what they’re fed. And so, I think that the bigger issue is, how do we get people to become more critical of the media? How do we get the media to end their commercial sponsorships and be the media that they’re supposed to be? We’re caught up in a much bigger problem. Capitalism has somehow replaced the pursuit of happiness with the acceptance of greed, and that’s the bigger problem here. We have a series of issues that are contingent upon each other, and no one can ever get to the bottom issue because all these issues are overwhelming.

Mike: The facts and a candidate’s past record on the issues are the only things that matter.  A candidate’s record is the most reliable information you can rely on to predict their future behavior.  I don’t trust someone who lies.  I am a member of the American public.  The American public is not very aware.  We need to be more aware of what is going on and we aren’t.  Talk to someone from another country, travel, educate yourself, be aware.  Until we become aware, someone’s image will be more important than the facts.

Graham: This goes back to attention, rationalism and time.  Only about 45% of our public goes beyond a debate to fact-check.  Most people do not have the time to pour over multiple editorials, and follow cited sources to read the full context that a statement or fact might have come from.  I’ve read statements from politicians and commentators that include quotes from studies, or laws, or even other peoples’ quotes, and found the context to be completely different than how it was used.   Even fact-checking sites are not immune to partisanship and misconstrued perspectives.  It’s all about context.

__________________________________________

5. One glaring issue that seems to escape most of the political dialogue is Obama’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act 2012.  Authorizing $662 billion in funding for America’s defense, the “Counter-Terrorism” provisions drew controversy for the indefinite detention of individuals “suspected of terrorism.”  Without trial. Until the end of the hostilities.  I personally have problems with this section of the NDAA because of past wrongs surrounding Japanese-Americans and internment camps during World War II.  Where do you stand on the NDAA?  Is it constitutional?

Alyasha: Completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL!  We don’t need another Manzanar or Guantanamo Bay for that matter.  Please do not forget that many of those Japanese-Americans’, land, homes, businesses and livelihoods were taken from them by the U.S. Government. When they returned from internment, many were left with nothing. These were generations-deep American citizens.

Donny: I oppose it 100% along with the Patriot Act that George Bush signed. They are both very similar, in many ways basically stripping the American people of all of their rights in one way, shape, or form. These laws are now on the books but dare just not being enforced yet. They are there for the day when people start rebelling against the current political system and actually threaten it.

Mear One: No. I mean it’s taking away our constitutional rights, and that right there… We should have a revolution over that. I don’t understand how people have just sat around and talked either fearfully about it or have been oblivious to it, but that’s grounds for a revolution. If this were France, we would’ve burnt the country down already.

Mike: In this day and age there are people that want you and I to die because of what country we are from.  They don’t operate by the same rules that we are governed by.  I believe the NDAA is necessary.  It is probably not constitutional, but there are many things that occur in this country that aren’t constitutional.  There is an amendment in the constitution that calls for a clear separation of church and state; who is enforcing that one?

Graham: The whole idea of the definition of “Enemy Combatant” and how it relates to a citizen’s civil rights has always drawn conflict. One could always argue that in war, if you’re fighting for the “other side”, you are essentially forfeiting your citizenship and therefore are not subject to the same rights. So, I can see why certain people would be ok with this type of action. HOWEVER, I think it’s bullshit. It allows too many loopholes for abuse and puts too much power in the hands of one or two departments of the government to strip the rights away from us that they don’t have the right to do. Obama’s admin has even gone so far as to justify the execution (kill or capture) of an American Citizen without trial if they are found to be aiding an “Enemy of the State” such as Al Qaeda. The problem is that, again, it allows for too much discretion on the part of a tiny group of people to make a life or death decision without public trial, and it could be construed to apply to anyone causing problems for the government if so desired.

Do I expect it to be widely abused? Not really, but the simple fact that it exists in such language is a blatant disregard for our rights, just as the Patriot Act is. The fact that people think Democrats don’t engage in this type of lawmaking is funny. When it comes to national security tactics (i.e., CIA, FBI, NSA), there is little to no difference. Sure, they might outcry waterboarding, because it plays to peoples sympathies, but then they can justify execution? Both parties disregard the Constitution like it doesn’t even exist.

__________________________________________

6. I know there are a few people in here who have a decided opinion on former candidate, Ron Paul. One of Paul’s most notable legs was his foreign policy stance of nonintervention.  Meaning the United States shouldn’t meddle with problems overseas, and instead focus on our own affairs right here at home. Is this ideal a feasible reality?  Would it better America or make our situation worse?

Alyasha: Non-Interventionsim is largely the way. Unfortunately it is almost impossible at this point. I believe it would totally make the U.S. situation better.  However, I feel there should be some exceptions.  For example, if an ally is in dire need and asks us to come to their aid.  A tough call to turn a blind eye if you see your friend getting their ass kicked.  Many gung-ho Americans fail to realize that the U.S. had a largely Non-Interventionst stance prior to WWI and WWII.

Donny: Ron Paul is completely correct . Michael Scheuer is ex-head of CIA who worked in the Middle East for many years and says the reason for Extreme Islamists is “Blowback.”  They don’t like us because the U.S. is occupying their countries. He also said recently that, “Electing anyone but Ron Paul will further increase the already strong chances of widespread Islamist-conducted violence inside the United States.”

Mear One: Well, the foreign policy that we have portrayed for the past 30 to 40 years has ruined our international respect. America once was a country that everyone else in this world strived to be like and accumulate the social status and the freedoms that we have in this country. We’ve been super inspirational to the entire world for the past 100-and-something years, and now we’re becoming like a terrorist country. Someone in England told me that Americans reminded them of a man driving an old ‘50s Cadillac with the top down, down the highway of life, with a brassiere over his eyes, a bottle of beer in the one hand, a joint in the other hand, a girl in a bikini in the backseat laughing, the radio’s turned up so loud [that] no one can hear what’s going on, and they’re just partying down the road, flooring it… Meanwhile, there’s people crossing the street, there’s other cars on the road… There’s a whole other world out there and America’s just oblivious to it. And it’s become like obesity – it’s overwhelming. Americans need to wake up and see that they’re setting a bad example for the future generations of Americans, and they’re setting a bad example for the rest of the world right now as [for] what democracy and freedom is all about.

Mike: I’m guessing there is quite a bit of information that we don’t have access to that would make non-intervention not feasible.  It is a great idea, but I think all countries would have to agree to it to make it more feasible.  It would probably make America better in the opinion of the world but it would also probably increase the probability of terrorist attacks here and around the world.

Graham: Is the idea of non-intervention something that sounds great? Yes. Will America ever become isolationist? Absolutely not. Would it actually benefit us? Not likely… the world is far too complex and connected now for it to work and would probably be detrimental to us. Regardless, this doesn’t mean we need to be meddling in so many other country’s affairs. The reality though, is that there is too much entrenched interests in our foreign policy endeavors that have little interest in the ethical reasons to be involved.

We haven’t been Isolationist in over 200 years. Non-intervention and isolationism aren’t exactly the same, but, regardless of any honorable or honest reason that we might get involved in a conflict, there will always be a financial interest trying to find a way to benefit from the conflict, and those financial interests unfortunately have strong influence on our elected officials. Altruistic actions are a myth.

Governments and society in general depend on revenue, regardless of whether or not it is self-generated and disseminated (communism), or collected through a taxed free market (Western Capitalism). The interest of maintaining revenue will always push the interests of a powerful nation into imperialism to strengthen the bottom line of the companies that support the economy most and in turn, generate revenue for the Government. Some of our worst transgressions barely even get spoken about… Look up the history of the United Fruit Company (Now known as Chiquita) and our government’s complicity in meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations in Central America at the benefit of “El Pulpo.” Dig into the contracts to rebuild Iraq.

So long as there is money to be made that benefits American financial interests, our government’s neo-colonialism will remain.

__________________________________________

7. “Socialism” is the word of the decade.  Socialism essentially means that the government owns all means of production, distribution of the product, as well as the distribution of wealth to the people.  With Barack’s tenure and his propagation of Obamacare, critics have called upon his policies as socialist.  Yet, we also live in a society where schools and libraries (both operated by the government) are philosophically socialist.  Is Obama a socialist?  And hey, is socialism really that bad?

Alyasha: The concept of socialism is great, but impossible due to Human Nature. People inherently / instinctively, want their own things. (And unfortunately in this generation, American youth don’t want to work for themselves, let alone work together for a common goal, unless, it’s for a brand or a record label.)

I feel that the right-wing media has take the word socialism / socialist and twisted it with semantics to try to make Obama out a socialist, something he is not.  No Obama is NOT a socialist. I wonder how many people called Franklin D. Roosevelt a “socialist” when he passed the Social Security Act in 1935?

Donny: Is it bad compared to what? Communist countries with less freedom than Americans? No . But compared to the way our country was founded I say, “Yes.” Limited Government is better. It is bad because we are losing more freedom and liberties every day. Our last few presidents have signed socialist policies into law. I can’t say if they are socialist. Having limited government controlled by the state is not socialist to me.

Mear One: I’ve been to Europe, and Europe is a much friendlier, happier, more economically sound place than America. People are not addicted to consumerism out there – they actually have culture and lives. And so, yeah, I think that socialism makes way more sense than capitalism. Capitalism spawns bottom-line factors. It inspires people to be greedy at any costs. Capitalism shows you that you can have whatever you want as long as you can afford it, and there’s no redeeming value to it other than self-gratification. And that just goes to build a bigger ego, and more attitude, and more ignorant thinking. Socialism sponsors family. Socialism sponsors the betterment of everyone in your society around you. And it also allows for the individual to coexist simultaneously. And so, really, the best things about America are our socialist values that we’ve already pioneered and developed here. It’s a question that doesn’t understand where it’s coming from for Americans to think, “Is this socialist?” No, this is American.

Mike: By your definition in your question Obama is not a socialist.  I believe in the American dream, I want to call my own shots and build my own shit.  Socialism would not allow me to do that.  By your definition in your question, socialism is bad.

Graham: *Sorry, this one can’t be more succinct without losing the point, its kind of a complex and misunderstood situation and i feel it needs all the details i put in here.*

I would say Socialism has been the word of the past 65 years. It’s connection to the Cold War and it’s extreme cousin, Communism, continues to leave a strong distaste in many people’s mouths and as such is a powerful tool to instill fear and grow opposition to certain social programs. Socialism, if you are to break it down to the simplest explaination, is simply a reference to a system that is “Not for Profit”. As you stated, in the question, it can be applied to industry and distribution of goods where profit is not the motive. It can also mean the control of an economy with the idea that everyone will live a better life if they are provided an equal set of responsibilities and compensation, which is what Communism was born from. The problem is that pure Socialism in the form of Communism cannot work on a national scale due to human nature, and violates inherent human rights, just the same as far right forms of Capitalism.

Our government instead relies on taxation to manage it’s operations. Opponents of taxation equate taxation to socialism because it is essentially redistribution of wealth for public use. This is not altogether an unfair perspective. However, there is something to be said for the fact that having a purely libertarian and laissez-faire society is somewhat of an impossibility outside of a very rural society, which we simply do not have anymore. Being an Ethical Capitalist myself, I don’t agree with a system that does not allow for increased reward for ingenuity and hard work, ie: reaping what you sow. However, I do not feel that regulations are evil if they serve a valid purpose and keep capitalistic systems and markets from transforming into Imperialism and Monopolies that do not take the humans they effect into account.

Social programs, as they have existed in this country, served as a public service to better the lives of the populace as a whole. They are part of an agreed upon social contract- that the benefit of those programs outweigh the shared financial cost it takes to fund them. Other Social Programs most people generally don’t take into consideration when discussing such things are Fire and Police Departments, and our Military (although, increasingly and alarmingly there is more outsourcing being done by our military, ie. Blackwater). These are both tax revenue funded, not for profit services that exist to serve a benefit to our society. I find it ironic that people who decry the idea of taxation to pay for basic health care can turn around and call for the maintaining of funding of the military through the same system.

I don’t have a problem with social programs, if they provide a benefit that is worth what it takes to pay for it. Public schools, libraries, fire, police and military, for all the arguments on how much should be spent on them, are established examples of socialism (social programs, government funded, not for profit) that work. I personally wouldn’t be opposed to a health program that would allow for all citizens to at the very least get check ups and routine tests. If someone wants to have chiropractor visits and physical therapy paid for, they can purchase more comprehensive insurance to fullfil their needs.

So looking at “Obamacare”, what exactly is it? It makes requirements of insurance companies to insure certain high health risk people (chronic illness, etc), it requires adult children to be covered further through college, and further regulates the pharmaceutical industry. But essentially it’s a mandate eliminating your choice of whether to purchase a service or not. A forced purchase of health care plans by people who would normally be uninsured. It operates under the principle, that in order for an insurance company to be able to afford to insure more young, or sick or low income people, it needs healthy people to pay their monthly bill that do not end up needing alot of medical attention. This averages out to allow the company to take a loss on some patients, and still maintain a profit (which is funny, because its a capitalistic business model based on voluntary group socialism).

Obamacare is not Socialism, but an Authoritarian requirement by our government to purchase a service in order to provide more care to certain people. It is not a state run and funded set of health care companies like the NHS in England, which is an actual social program. Medicare, is government funded. Welfare is goverment funded. Obamacare is nothing like either one of those even though it ends up with the same result. This admin basically just tried to be sneaky and avoid being called socialist by forcing people to buy from the public sector, when in reality its will end up affecting the less well off due to the ratio of insurance premiums to their income versus someone who is more well off.

__________________________________________

The third and final round of The Hundreds presents POLITIXXX will go live tomorrow morning.

So let’s switch things up a bit.

Here in the States, outside of the hurricane this and the World Series that, we’re actually on the brink of a presidential election.  Next Tuesday, November 6th, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are going head-to-head to see who’ll be the leader of the free world for the next four years.

Politics are far and away on most of your minds, I’m sure.  But I think we can all take a breather from crispy baseball caps and sneaker releases to concentrate on something that really matters.  Over the remainder of the week, I’ll be posting three rounds of a Q & A regarding the upcoming U.S. presidential race, featuring five notable personalities in, of, and around the Streetwear and Street Culture community.  This roundtable will touch on pertinent questions on my mind, that I believe affect everyone’s lives, whether you choose to partake in them or not.  I know the material may bore many of you, and if so, I won’t be offended if you tune out for a couple days (I expect you back here bright and early Monday morning however).  But for the rest of you, perhaps this will ignite the spark to be more aware, involved, and self-educated on not just American issues, global concerns, human concerns.

To help me in this endeavor, I’ve enlisted the ranks of five dudes whose opinion I much respect and admire.  These are all individuals who are our friends and of our world, and have built the reputation for being outspoken, standing up for their beliefs, and encouraging youth to participate in world affairs.

First up is Alyasha Owerka-Moore of New York and San Diego, legendary Streetwear designer, tastemaker, and subcultural forerunner.

We also have Donny Damron, co-owner of Pharmacy Boardshop, with 6 locations around Southern California and Nevada; the skate/street boutique is also a longtime authorized The Hundreds stockist.

The world-renowned Mear One is one of the progenitors and flagbearers of the modern graffiti-art movement, heralded as much for his visual art as it’s strong political undertones.

Michael Brown owns the famous True street boutique in San Francisco, as well as True Sole next door, and True East in Walnut Creek.  He was one of our first accounts, and still remains one of our coolest.  Mike’s also the son of former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown.

Last but not least is Graham Nystrom of Us Versus Them.  Aside from being a prolific artist and designer, he’s also incredibly astute, one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people in our industry.  And just an all-around awesome dude.

__________________________________________

1. Who are you voting for and why?

Alyasha: President Obama. Honestly, he’s the best statesman we’ve had in years. Despite his few shortcomings, I believe he’s the right man for the job.  Romney LIES CONTINUOUSLY and has no real stance on anything except wanting to be president of the United States.

Donny: Gary Johnson. He is the candidate that is truly for limited government . If you pick from the lesser of two evils, you are choosing evil.

Mear One: I was going to vote for someone like Ron Paul, but he wasn’t on the ballot. So I voted for Barack Obama, because he was the least problem on there and most likely to get elected. I’m not happy with the lack of choice. He’s definitely the lesser of two evils. And I mean, we have the Independent party and Green party… After years of voting and being a voter, I’ve just seen that the Green party and the Independent party are not in the position right now to deliver us a President, still. And so I’m stuck with two choices basically, and it’s BS and it sucks. I’m not happy with it. But there’s no way in hell that I would want Romney over Obama, even though they’re both a couple of puppets.

Mike: I’m voting for Obama because his ideals and the Democrats’ ideals are closer to my own than Romney’s and the Republicans.  I don’t 100% agree with everything either candidate is proposing, but I do believe the Republicans are about consolidating wealth and power in the hands of the few.  I am against that.

__________________________________________

2. Does any of this really matter in the long run?  Does the President of the United States actually affect any change for our lives, or is he just a puppet?

Alyasha: EVERYTHING MATTERS in the long run. The president absolutely has the ability to create change for our lives.  Just ask the Wounded Warriors / Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.  I understand the power of corporate lobbyists on our government, but by no means is president Obama a “puppet.”  GW Bush was a complete puppet for the Trilateral commission and Romney is presently a puppet for the American corporate power structure.

Donny: He does affect change but still a puppet to the banking cartel, CFR, and big money funding decisions made in Washington. Not all parties and people agree with everything and most people in public office are out for there own best interest and the people and business’ surrounding them.

Mear One: Well, I imagine that Barack Obama will allow women to continue to have abortions, where Mitt Romney would probably make that a problem… And so there are a variety of issues that are subject to change depending on who gets elected. At the end of the day though, the bigger picture – like who we’re going to bomb, who we’re getting our oil from, and what countries are our allies – I don’t think that’s going to change depending on who’s elected. America has specific goals that it just doesn’t matter who the President is. These goals are being addressed, and these fall in the lap of whoever is our President.

Mike: It does matter in the long run because the President is one of the three main branches of our government, the Executive branch.  Through the Bush and Obama presidencies, the powers of the Executive branch have been greatly expanded.  While the President needs the cooperation of the Legislative branch, he or she can affect change (mostly over a longer period of time) in our lives.  The President is the main representative of his or her political party.  ”Puppet” is a strong word, but yes the President can be considered a tool his or her political party or main supporters.

Graham: It does and it doesn’t. To say that it doesn’t matter completely eliminates any level of influence which any one president DOES actually possess. The people he decides to put into office and surround him or herself with will influence the policies that are enacted during their term and beyond. So, yes, it does matter. However, given that our choices are solely Republican or Democrat, does it matter?

No.

Sure, they may have differences concerning things like whether rape pregnancies are a gift from god, or if people should be allowed to be paid to work less (at the expense of the truly incapable), but when it comes down to the deep, deep financial and world issues that will ultimately affect your lives more, there is NO difference between the two.

__________________________________________

3. So a big trend with today’s youth, and maybe rightfully so, is to refrain from politics entirely.  Maybe jaded by the Internet coverage, the lying on both sides, or just the lack of obvious change or effect in their personal lives, many proactively choose to not only stay away from voting or educating themselves, but to voice an opinion against it.  Bertolt Brecht once said, “The worst illiterate is the political illiterate” because “from his political non-participation comes the prostitute, the abandoned child, the robber and, worst of all, corrupt officials, the lackeys of exploitative multinational corporations.”  Would you agree with Brecht or do you empathize with the non-voter?

Alyasha: Unfortunately, we live in a very media-centric and ambivalent society today. Youth are largely too worried about what to buy and how to impress people they have never seen or met. The last thing these kids care about is politics, because Politics is not “Fun” and does not get you Likes on your Facebook or Instagram or more followers on your Twitter, unless of course you are a politician. I would not say youth are “Jaded” but more ambivalent due to the fact that they do not see the importance of politics, or how it affects their self-absorbed, self-entitled lives. We live in a completely “Brave New World’ society right now. Consume to be accepted and don’t worry about politics or the powers that be. Happy to be sheep. Don’t live healthy, but look good. <Sarcasm.

Yes, I agree with Brecht wholeheartedly and this is exactly what would happen if Romney became president.  So no, I do not empathize with the non voter.

Donny: I think any vote that is an uneducated vote is a bad vote and playing into the two party system that is controlled by a small group of people.  Thomas Jefferson said “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”  Major media is a monopoly that six corporations control 90% of. I would say over 99% of people are politically illiterate because they get their info that is skewed by major media. I am not saying it’s all lies but it is a lot easier to mislead someone with facts than it is with bullshit. That’s why people like Rush make so much money.

I would have to say I agree with Brecht.

Mear One: Yeah, I do agree with him. I think that the non-voter doesn’t realize that half this world doesn’t have the ability to vote for their own presidents and for their own laws. It’s the apathy that comes along with not voting that has put us in this position. We want to hold onto our right to vote because if we can make change, then we will still have these rights. If we give up all of our rights, we’ll never be able to make any change because we’ll just go further down a corporate slide into slavery.

Mike: I empathize with the non-voter because I understand and share their frustration, but nothing will change without all of our participation.  I have been around politics all my life, successful politicians focus on getting elected or re-elected, which means if you don’t bother to vote you aren’t as important to them as someone who does vote.  Our country is run by majority rule, the majority of those who bother to vote get their way.   If everybody who was eligible to do so voted, this would be a much different country.  Much different.  I 100% agree with Brecht.

Graham:  Apathy is shit.

I get why it’s a common reaction though. A person can only beat your head against the wall so many times before you decide, “Well, I’m not going to break this wall down,”when they really should be looking for a better tool to use.

The world is filled with people who have good intentions and good ideas, but so very few are equipped with the attention, rationalism and quite frankly, the time needed in order to become a force of change for whatever cause they are championing. So for most people, having any effect on the direction of the world beyond their immediate community seems out of reach. So then, why bother?

The biggest issue is that people think the only way to change things is to vote for a president or elected official. Given our choices of political parties, apathy is an understandable reaction as there is little difference between them, save for certain social issues. But as the past 100 years have shown us, real awareness and political movements start at community levels. The established system functions as a levee to contain the public within a manageable level, but when there is a flood of popular sentiment, in order to keep the levees from failing completely, they adjust to the change in order to maintain their level of control. When an establishment does not flex with popular sentiment, you end up with situations like Egypt.

But getting back to the Brecht quote. I have always had an issue with it and its relation to apathy, because it relies on the belief that these problems arise from poor governing of society. It basically states: “If the government does not provide (_________), then these negative social aspects will happen, so the worst people are those who do not engage in the political process”. While there is some truth to this, his perspective is too one-sided. In reality, in order to avoid such negative byproducts of society, there needs to be a healthy balance of personal responsibility, honesty and self-determination prevalent and ingrained into the community itself, as well as engagement in the political process to make sure that there is a foundation for all to live decent lives if they choose to, the truly helpless do not fall through the cracks, and our government’s processes are transparent, fair and honest.

__________________________________________

Round 2 of The Hundreds presents POLITIXXX begins tomorrow morning!