The Jessaverse | Change and Exchange

Apparently, there is a big furore over the euro and its staying power in Europe. In Germany, certain groups are theorising about returning to marks, and some Italians are wanting to go back to the lira. I can understand the Germans’ frustration, especially since when the currency was changed from the DM to the euro, prices seemed to increase more and more, rather than just trying to keep the euro price equivalent the same as what something might have cost in marks. Most of these groups appear to be right-wing nationalist groups, which seem to be historically opposed to most international organisations that have jurisdiction over theor own countries. These speculations don’t seem to be passed into law any time soon, but it’s still definitely food for thought, as it casts some doubt on the viability of the common European currency. The ‘no’ votes on the European constitution earlier this year also make the future of the united Europe look somewhat grim. I personally hope that the Europeans can reach a settlement and co-operate when it comes to the euro and the constitution, since I’m a supporter of continental and global organisations that oversee the actions of individual nation-states. I tend to be more of a globalist than a nationalist, but I’ll discuss that in another post…

What I don’t understand is that so many people are opposed to globalisation and its effects. They clamour to “Keep the jobs here!” and “No intervention!” The thing is that in our post-Cold-War world, we are inevitably connected to each other through the United Nations, international trade, the internet, and through our shared experiences. Once globalisation came about, it was impossible to curtail its effects. It is impossible for one country to stay isolated from the rest of the world; what happens in another country will eventually affect us in some way. Isolationists tend to be obscurantists who are closed to most other cultures and other forms of experience. Also, I find that our globalised culture is an enlightening experience. In the old days, it was far more difficult to listen to a foreign composition or communicate with someone halfway around the world. Nowadays all that is feasible with a mere click of the mouse. Sometimes I take it for granted, but today it seems so staggering that I can speak to people from countries other than my own and listen to music that is not from my native country — and obtain it so easily. I just sat and thought about it, and I thought, “Amazing.” At this very moment in time, I am a Europeanised American sitting in Germany, listening to a Swedish group, posting on this site, with readers from Europe, Asia, North America, and Australia, and drawing pictures with a Japanese flair. I couldn’t have things better in this aspect.

But there are some downsides to globalisation, especially the American cultural hegemony that seems to be engulfing the world at the moment. Cultural exchange is excellent; I approve of it, but America seems to be taking over everything culturally, and traditional cultural aspects seem to suffer because of it. I am tired of the world becoming one big America. I like GLOBALISATION, not AMERICANISM. I see it all the time here in Germany. Certain advertisements are in English, and apparently some kids around here speak phony English to sound “cool.” And the thing is, it’s not British English that’s being spread around; it’s American English. I don’t think those ads should be banned, but I think they definitely highlight the pervasiveness of Americanism in Europe. Writing standards are starting to adhere to American rules, a big shift from the state of things in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. People clamour to go to America, and there is nothing they want more than to be Americans. I don’t get it. I seriously don’t get it. America has a better social situation than some lesser-developed countries, but right now, there is such a cultural and political upheaval by the conservatives that anyone who divagates from the norm wouldn’t be quite welcome in “average” America.

Keep globalisation, but tone the Americanism down.

Many of you are familiar with the fact that a lot of my posts seem to be virulently anti-conservative. Although I like most people and try my hardest to get along with everyone despite their political views, I have a hard time dealing with social conservatives (I have more patience for economic conservatives). They seem to be so intolerant and opposed to social progress; if something is new, it is automatically bad. That is what makes me so mad about them. They think that THEIR way of having a family is the only right way. They think THEIR way of politics is the only right way. It’s absolutely maddening. So many of them are homophobic and don’t want gays to get married just because their bigoted interpretation of Christianity says so. Hello, if you don’t want a gay marriage, then don’t freaking have one. There is no valid reason to oppose equal rights for all people — anything else is bigotry.

(I also have problems with liberals being bigoted towards those who don’t agree with them. I actually have a problem with bigotry in general. This post is mainly addressed towards conservatives because they are primarily the ones who are spreading bigotry across the nation right now.)

originally appeared as a livejournal entry, expanded and edited for the ‘verse

Last week, I was supposed to go into town for my psychologist appointment, but it just so happened that there was a mixup and she wasn’t there, so I just decided to wander around town and pick up something to eat. I was walking around with my paper cone full of fries (that really didn’t taste that great, by the way; I should’ve chosen another Imbisstube [an Imbisstube is a German snack bar] from which to get better fries) down the street, nonchalantly, until I came upon a few signboards decrying Bush’s government and mentioning Lyndon LaRouche. The guy at the stand noticed me and started talking to me (in German, until he started to accommodate me and started speaking English) about Bush conspiracy theories and his connection with the Nazis. He seemed to know more about US politics than most Americans, but he definitely seemed like a conspiracy theorist. He didn’t seem that bad, but I started reading some the literature when I was riding home on the bus, and I was like “What the fuck?” They seemed to be extremely far-left but with an emphasis on “classical” culture and anti-environmentalism. Hello, Lysenko! (I’m not saying that they agree with Lysenko agriculturally; I’m just saying that their scientific views are well…unscientific.) Anyway, I donated one Euro, so that I was able to read some of their literature. (I wouldn’t donate any more than that, I’ll tell you right now.) I also just now started looking up some of the LaRouche Movement views…I’ll tell you right now, I’ll stay as moderate as I am. I may be somewhat liberal, but I’m no conspiracy theorist.

It’s shocking how the LaRouchies are so anti-neocon, but seem to be so anti-progress in so many other things. This opposition to progress upsets me. As all readers of my blogs know, I have a big problem with social conservatism because of its negative stance towards progress.

(Sounds like another entry for me…Why I am not a Conservative!)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1582423,00.html

I had heard that Pope Benedict XVI would be more moderate than some of the other candidates, but the current pope makes George W. Bush look like Madalyn Murray O’Hair. He demands that all Catholics follow the strict rulings of the church, no matter what the local law might be. No room for interpretation here…He has strongly expressed his opinion regarding same-sex marriage, abortion, and other contentious issues — they’re all sinful, and there might even be a risk of not being able to take communion if you take a stance outside what the church demands. Apparently, he’s not too wild about materialism and capitalism as well. Why, he’s even saying that women should return to their traditional roles rather than work.

I swear, religious leaders are moving us further and further into the Dark Ages. This is supposed to be a decade of progress, not regression. I wouldn’t be surprised if Catholics got fed up and started to start a new sect of Christianity.

I used to define myself as a pure liberal (I’m even a registered Democrat, as some of you know), but I’m starting to question that, since I seem to agree with some of the major parties about something, but I never seem to agree about everything. I agree with the liberals and Libertarians about personal liberties. There is no way that I’d EVER oppose equal rights for anyone. However, I disagree with the liberals about their universal healthcare plan. I think that medical vouchers, or some sort of individually chosen plan, would do better than having the State choose your doctors. Same goes for school vouchers, something with which I agree with the Republicans about. You should be able to choose where you want to go to school, BUT (here’s the caveat) public schools should still be supported and reformed, as I outlined earlier in the Education post. I agree with the right to bear arms as well; guns don’t kill people, people do. I just ask that people use locks on their guns so that no one inadvertently shoots himself. Government should not have to coerce people to be responsible.

I can’t be a Democrat because of my affinity for smaller government.
I can’t be a Republican beause of the social conservatism, the emphasis on profits over people, and the far too small government.
I can’t be a communist because of my support for capitalism, individual liberties, and individualism. Collectivism is not for me.
I can’t be a libertarian because there are no safety nets in such a government.
I can’t be a populist because of their emphasis on larger government WITHOUT the corresponding concern with social issues.
I can’t be a Green because I don’t agree with their type of environmentalism.

I’m an independent.
In short my politics are: Fair trade, capitalism, and individual rights. Why can’t one party have all those things?

Last night I finished reading Tom Friedman’s paean to globalisation, The Lexus and the Olive Tree.

It was less harsh than I expected, although the American jingoism was rather annoying, as well as the seeming praise of Reagan and Thatcher. The commentary on France and Western Europe wasn’t that great at all, either. But for the most part, I was in favour of what Friedman wrote. He made some excellent points about the fact that in order to be relevant in modern society, you must be part of the information age, and that you must be plugged in to the “Electronic Herd” and make sure to balance your capital with the human and environmental elements in your country. I enjoyed reading the book, and I usually don’t find myself that interested in books that discuss economics, but I was surprisingly fascinated this time.

I agree with Friedman that globalisation is mostly a positive force in our society, but I have reservations about unbridled capitalism. (And so does Friedman, apparently.) I am far from being a socialist; I am someone who agrees with the capital system. I’m too individualistic to support a collectivist society, and too sympathetic to support a Darwinian capitalism. (That’s what prevents me from being a Republican, a Green, a Libertarian, or a Communist.) I don’t approve of multi-national companies abusing their workers abroad. Abuse of human beings is wrong, whether it increases profit or not. I don’t think that we should necessarily focus on keeping the jobs in America; rather, we should focus on keeping the jobs safe. I think that we should work to improve labour conditions in the countries from which we import. Happy workers tend to work harder and be more satisfied than tortured workers anyway. Slavery and mistreatment are always inexcusable.

I believe in balancing people and profits. I think that we should have a small welfare state for those who truly cannot make it on their own, but it should not be extensive so that it becomes a pure “nanny state.” As an example of an individual choice/government balance, I’ll use health care. With medical care, I don’t completely agree with the Democrats’ plan of universal health care as presented. I don’t think the government should choose the doctor that you have to visit, but I also think that people who couldn’t otherwise have good health care should be able to see a decent doctor of their choice. Hence, I support the use of medical vouchers. A medical voucher would be issued for a certain amount of money based on the person’s family size, needs, and socioeconomic status. You would be able to see any doctor that you wanted and that the government could afford to pay for.

I don’t care for a lot of mainstream Democrats and Republicans being anti-gay marriage, including both the major Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2004 election. It upsets me quite a bit, but I understand some of their rationales (although I don’t think they are right.) The reason why we’re not accepting of gays and their rights seems to be a combination of a fear of the unfamiliar, as well as traditionalist teachings. And add to that the ideas of people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson, who disseminate their anti-gay ideas through the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Old Time Gospel Hour, and the 700 Club. Even so, all the major candidates this last election sucked. I voted for Kerry, but I don’t think he was the best choice. Nor was Bush. Third parties (no offense) have a very difficult time getting through the “glass ceiling” of the two-party system of the United States. It’s fucked, I know, and I wish that it were possible for third parties to get more exposure. If Nader were a serious contender, and could have defeated both Dubya and Kerry, I would have definitely voted for him, rather than John Kerry.
The upside about both Bush and Kerry was that it appeared they were both supportive of civil unions, as is Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger is one of the few Republican politicians I have a modicum of respect for, at least regarding his stance on stem-cell research, abortion, and gay rights. Now, I’d have to talk to someone who lived in California to give me a full picture of Schwarzenegger’s policies. (It’s still weird to talk about him as a politician rather than an actor.) It’s some candidates’ religious beliefs that prevent them from supporting gay marriage, especially Bush, Kerry, and Bill Clinton. I heard Clinton was travelling around, telling people not to support gay marriage. That’s expected from a Southern Baptist. I don’t like that. We need to work on educating people that gay marriage isn’t the threat to the United States moral fabric as they think it is. I don’t necessarily think that we have to do everything right away, but we need to provide positive examples of gay couples and of homosexuality in general to the American population to acclimatise everyone to the idea that gays are normal people, not subhuman beings that do not deserve equal rights.