Pay me or Die sukka

Right to be Paid for Labor

I haven’t always been the biggest supporter of the right to property. In my youth my dabbling into Communism led me to question the intrinsic belief that many of us in the West place upon the right to own physical things. Yet on thing  I never questioned, and ultimately why I never fully supported a physical example of Communism was the right one has to ones labor. This is a fundamental piece of Lock’s understanding of property, and where he derives his belief in the right to ownership from.
For me, a young existentialist living abroad, the understanding of rights often comes into conflict with the reality of my situation quite frequently. It happens at home too but the Libertarian streak of our country means there are more people who at least seem to talk about demanding their rights.  My conflict seems to come from my belief that as a human I have whatever rights I choose to give myself. While many other societies seem to believe that rights are  unimportant ideas, which can and should be trumped for others like security and harmony.  This seemed to be happening in America before I left as  we shift to being scared of some ghostly idea of  terrorism.
However in my current situation the right to property or being compensated for my labor has come into conflict with the reality of my situation.  My current Employer NOVA, is in the throws of its final death, scraping for a Lazarus like resurrection at he hands of questionable, if not downright Yakuza like Christ’s. This means for me and many of the other employees that  we have not been paid. This month marks the second month that  pay has been late for Teachers, and the fourth month in a row that it has been late for the Japanese workers, who coincidently are still un paid for last pay check to.
Now for me I have to demand my right otherwise I view it as a tacit consent to allow it to be taken away. Of course there are consequences to my actions as there are to any action but failure to act is an act itself. My right to fair payment for my labor comes directly out of my ownership of my labor. Yet some people continue to work unwilling or ignorant to the situation. They blame me and other teachers who fail to show up despite often draconian working conditions; for the demise of the company. Much like those chicken hawks who blame the people, claiming the failure was a lack of commitment to a war ; when it was lost from the very beginning.
But even more surprising are the Japanese staff who continue to work despite long periods of late or no pay. Now I could chalk this up to Japanese culture and the desire to show loyalty to a company, but something about it just strikes me as wrong. If the Staff had said this is not right earlier something might have happened.  Granted there is no money to pay us regardless of action, but at least knowing that; it should make you want to work even less.
By refusing to demand the right to fair compensation for their labor they have tacitly consented to give it up.  I for one will not subject myself to such treatment. I may starve as a result of my actions, but I may  starve regardless of my actions. For me the principle of the issue is what is at stake. Our rights are precious things which we must fight for, we are to quick to give in when pressure is applied. Granted in light of the much more serious struggles going on in the world, such as Burma, mine seems rather petty but it is the same idea; even if its not as important. So support the fight for rights around the world, the more people demand the more we will be given and our success in one place leads to more in others.

Learning Another Language

I am always surprised when I travel to other countries how willing they are to study other languages. Not necessarily on an individual level but at least on a national level many places require students to learn another language in school, and people go to great lengths paying large sums of money  for additional private study. In some parts of the world, being bilingual or even trilingual is a necessity for daily life. This seems strange when compared to America, which routinely denounces bilingualism and even foreign language training in schools.
I understand why on some levels people would be resistant to allowing other languages to get a foot hold in America. Language, not only helps to dictate the way we think and understand the world, but also our very culture.  In a culture as devoid of real unique identifiable culture as ours,  it is understandable why some might feel threatened by bilingualism. Especially when that language can be used to keep minority groups out of positions of authority. Mexican vernacular Spanish, and African American vernacular English are to examples, of how the dominant culture uses language to identify minority’s and keeps them out of the dominant marketplace of ideas.
I remember being in High School and having a math teacher who used African American vernacular English. I remember thinking him a very smart man until he broke out into it. After that I thought him ignorant. It wasn’t until College that I realized he was trying to communicate a difficult idea in a language that I didn’t speak, in order for some of the other students ( not all of whom were Black) to fully understand. I don’t know if he consciously did so or if it just came out but, nevertheless it happened. My perception at the time was still such that I believed by his speech pattern  he was stupid. This happens all the time When some one hears some one else speak differently. Even if it is with an accent but especially if its in another language or vernacular, we make assumptions.
Learning another language is also a symbol of class, depending on what language you learn. Rich prep schools offer Latin, and any other language you might want. The Good public schools offer German French, and maybe one or two others. The poor schools are lucky if they offer Spanish, despite the fact that many have native Spanish speaking populations.  To be able to learn certain languages is almost a position of rank in our society.
However I believe it can be demonstrated that learning multiple levels increases the intelligence of the student. So on some very basic levels we are shooting ourselves in the foot by denying ourselves a bilingual culture. We eliminate elements of culture which our society as a melting pot should be absorbing. We do not make ourselves less American by becoming bi or tri lingual but in fact more American. We become better humans because we are able to more fully understand other cultures and people, and we allow ourselves to think in a greater number of ways.

Allow me to reintroduce my self

For those of you who do not know me, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Vincent Von Amsterdam. No that’s not my real name, just a pseudonym. What good is a secrete identity if every one knows your secret. For those of you lucky enough to know me, please don’t go blabbing to the world. This is not an online journal nor a diary, but merely a means of expressing  my own reality.  I think blogs are the greatest form of gonzo journalism, and if the good doctor were alive today he would have his own.
This particular blog revolves around, my travels and the politics of the world. The two are not yet interconnected but eventually will be so. Not to say I am affecting world politics with my travels but merely that my travels reflect politics in the world.  At the current time I have  left my native  homeland of America, in search of fame and fortune, much like the children of aristocratic youth did in times past. I am now residing in Japan, the land of Neon Lights and raw fish, experiencing the fullness of its fast food English culture.
Although in my case, the infamy and fortune which might have come from piracy or trade is hard to achieve and  I find myself  a late comer. Forced to eck out a living providing in over glorified service industry. Still living abroad certainly beats  living at home, and as much as my job marketability may be service related it beats working at McDonalds.  Even if it sometimes feel dam near close.
But stay tuned dear reader for just because my  job is mundane,  it doesn’t mean my brain is. In fact it gives me more time to think and write. This post has been a while in coming but it will be shortly followed by many more at least until I no longer have internet.

Treason in the Courts or Treason in the Country?

I am horrified and sickened by the turn of public opinion in this country from our founding principles of liberty and freedom. The slow turn away from what our country was founded on is the worst kind of cowardice, and there is only one word to describe these people TRAITOR. The people I am speaking of are the same people who disagree with the fourth circuit courts decision that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri can’t be classified as an enemy combatant. Many people are upset over this decision because they feel it limits the government’s ability to protect citizens against threats from foreign enemies, giving them safe haven in our judicial system. While I can understand where this fear comes from not only is it misplaced and incorrect but it is disastrous to our country.

The courts decision is correct in its definition of enemy combatants, having to do with the forces of another nation, as opposed to a transnational organization like al-Qaeda. This is a correct definition because inherently acts of terrorism are not acts of war but criminal acts. Just because King Georgie declares a war against terrorism does not make all terrorists enemy combatants. If this was true all drug dealers and users would also be classified as enemy combatants because we are in a war on drugs, and therefore these people should all be tried in military tribunals. At one point even the poor could have been called enemy combatants under this definition because LBJ declared a war on poverty. Just because a president makes a declaration of war does not in fact create a new definition of an old term. Enemy combatant is a term used to describe people who have accepted a code of conduct and are fighting for a specific state not a criminal agenda. Furthermore no actual declaration of war has been signed by congress against terrorism or Drug or poverty, we are not actually at war because you can not have a war against an action only against another nation.

The argument that this some how makes America less safe because we can’t “torture” them in undisclosed locations and make them give up information which is questionable in its accuracy or in the actual advantage it gives, That because we try them in a criminal court instead of in a military tribunal that we are giving them a warm welcome is preposterous. Our Court system is just as capable at trying foreign terrorists as it has been in trying domestic ones. This argument is treasonous because it denies the rule of law that has been created around such acts. It gets rid of our natural rights which we have agreed to in our social contract and codified in our constitution. These people want to ignore our constitution or do away with it and our rights because they feel it makes them more secure. However this is a false sense of security. Traditionally we have seen terrorism for what it is a criminal act that will be prosecuted the same regardless of whether it is coming from foreign or domestic sources. Those people who commit acts of terrorism are guaranteed the same rights as any other criminal, the right to a fair trial being one of those rights. To deny them those rights is to deny our American traditions and to bring our country as we know it to the brink of destruction.

By changing the definition of enemy combatant and making this a military issue we not only act treasonously but in fact make our selves less safe. It doesn’t matter whether the threat is al-Qaeda, or another Islamist organization or a home grown one like ALF, the Weather Underground, or abortion clinic bombers, terrorism is and always will be a criminal act not a military one. By making all terrorism and all terrorist enemy combatants we actually create more problems for our society and the safety of our citizens.

We do this by limiting the ability of domestic police forces in combating the problem. Instead of having the courts, the FBI and other police whose job it is to keep us safe at home you have strictly the military doing this job. This might not cause you any alarm, as you think its fine and dandy, but this is not the role of the army. If the army and CIA are busy trying to protect us domestically who is going to protect American interest abroad, and with our military already stretched so thin is it a good idea to stretch it even further. Fundamentally this is not the role of the Army and by making it their role you open the country up to many more threats and problems in the future. This is yet another step down a path which would make the military the sole control over our society allowing troops to be used domestically against citizens of our country. These Traitors might be fine with King Georgie having the power but how would they feel if it was Queen Hill Billy with this power or how about some future president whose intentions were less then pure. We used to say this was the problem with other countries and tell our selves we were glad we didn’t live there, yet now we are trying to bring those very actions to our own shores.

Second by taking it out of the domestic realm you limit the rights of the accused and allow them to be subject to military rule. Many might think this fitting for terrorists but what if the people are innocent. This has happened already innocent people have been accused of being terrorists and have been shipped of to small cells where they were tortured by us and other countries. al-Marri is most likely guilty I haven’t reviewed all of the evidence but not every one accused or tried and convicted of these crimes is guilty. What do we say to those people who we have wrongly hurt by this action? “Um, were sorry we tortured you and called you a terrorist please forgive us?” This kind of action just creates more terrorists and comes across to the rest of the world as hypocritical further lessening our standing and legitimacy in the world.

Third by changing the definition you give the current administration and future administrations (Democrat, or Republican) too much unchecked power. The courts are right in sticking to a definition because by allowing the president to change the definition at will you give into a very dangerous precedent which could have serious problems in the future. Would opponents of the courts decision still be ok if the president declared all people of Arab descent to be enemy combatant or all the people who are members of PETA, just because some of the leaders support and have sponsored domestic terrorists? How about if all the poor were declared enemy combatants or every one who even tried to speak out against the president? That is what happens when we allow an administration to change the definition of what it means to be an enemy combatant. FDR was wrong to intern all Japanese immigrants and we are wrong to try and change the definition of enemy combatants now. It’s wrong not only because it denies the vary right and freedoms we as a country stand for and want to up hold but more over its wrong because by allowing it to become a military and not a civil issue we do the opposite of making our country safe for democracy and liberty we make it safe for totalitarianism and for a military run police state.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Iraq War, Not In My Back Yard

Iraq War, Not in My Back Yard

A major problem with the war in Iraq is that the costs of it have been kept relatively out of the public viewing. Yes we have lost close to 3,500 soldiers in almost 5 years with no end. True we have squandered our national treasury on it spending money we could have used on national travesties like national disaster relief, securing our boarders, educating our children, and creating a health care system that could accommodate every American. But have we really had to give that much? Compare our level of giving to that of America during World War II. We don’t have rationing on necessary goods, we don’t have victory gardens or huge war bond drives. This war and the anti war movement suffer from the same syndrome that of N.I.M.B.Y. or Not in My Back Yard. This thought pattern basically allows people to accept poor conditions based on the fact that they don’t directly affect them personally. Your ok with the land fill so long as it not in your own back yard.
This is the same pattern and problem for both war and anti war people. Those who are vastly pro war especially in government seem to be the people who are giving the least. The most vocal anti war people are often those who have not given to the war effort, some veterans and their families who speak out being the one exception to the rule. But many of the people in the country who are against the war are passive and unwilling to stand up against it for the simple fact that it hasn’t affected them. I guarantee a general reinstatement of the draft would ignite their ire, especially when their families are the ones being sent of instead of just the ones who are willing to volunteer, or become mercenary’s.
A perfect example of this is the recent uproar in affluent communities where memorials to the fallen troops have sprung up. These communities are opposed to the war but are also opposed to the memorial. Why this paradox, well it goes back to N.I.M.B.Y. They oppose the memorial not because they feel it’s unpatriotic, that’s just the pro war, jingoistic, falsely patriotic people who deface memorials to the troops. These people oppose this because it lowers their property value. This is what these people truly care about the value of their property, not the lives of the Americans or the fact that their taxes are going to go up to pay for this war but how much their not going to make on their property. (Iraq War Memorial Sparks Fight over Property Value WSJ 6/607)
These same people would probably love a memorial anywhere else but in their backyard, and that’s the problem. Most people that support and oppose the war both suffer from. They are willing to have their opinion and agree or disagree for what ever reason so long as the war doesn’t come into their back yard. The second that it begins to directly affect them then their support for their position is quickly dissolved. This isn’t an indictment of the war itself. Just the fact that this war cost everybody; if we are unwilling to pay that cost then maybe we shouldn’t be at war. Or maybe the next time we begin to think about war we will ask what the real cost is and what we are really going to be asked to sacrifice. This war especially gets so much support because it’s all being purchased on layaway. Americans taxes don’t cover it yet because it’s being put on the country’s credit card. But one day were going to have to pay it of along with the interest. Whose pay check is it going to come out of? That’s right yours and mine, eventually it will come out of all of our backyards and a small decrease in property value will be the least of our worries.