“Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam.”

“If we denigrate and demonize then we are not following the Book of God“

“We live in a country that has a just waged law and yet I know of no Muslim country that has a just waged law“

“The American people are not the enemy of Islam“

“We can live together. It‘s a big world. There‘s lots of room for everybody.”

Recently this post about a community lead art campaign that depicts United States President Barack Hussein Obama as a Socialist version of Heath Ledger’s Joker from 2008′s The Dark Knight has gained quite a bit of traction. In fact, it has consistently ranked as the most viewed post on Brave New Wave for the past several days.

This sudden spark of interest in a post from eleven days ago, along with its ridiculous assertions of Obama as a Socialist remind me of a statement by author and activist Bell Hooks in which she states:

“[t]he privileged act of naming often affords those in power access to modes of communication and enables them to project an interpretation, a definition, a description of their words and actions, that may not be accurate, that may obscure what is taking place.”

This is essentially what the Conservative media, who are fearful of losing their grasp over the American people under a Democratic White House, are doing to the American people. By repeatedly using the term Socialist in reference to President Obama without ever clearly defining the term, these Conservatives are devising a diabolical scheme to turn the American people against their President. The campaign to brand Obama as a ‘Socialist’ not only brings the Conservatives’ limited understanding of Socialism (which is elementary at best) to the forefront, but also turns the American people away from policies they would otherwise rationally support as in their own interest.

In trying to brand Obama as a Socialist without a clear discussion as to what the term truly implies, the Conservatives are both limiting the hoi polloi’s access to important theoretical works of Socialist thought by referring to an on-going propaganda campaign in America which pits the unnamed, undefined ‘Socialist’ as the clear enemy of America, and drastically altering the implications of the theory of Socialism to fit the narrow scape of their smear campaign.

The Conservative media is trying to use the bailouts of financial institutions and health care reform, among other policies, to try and brand President Barack Obama as a Socialist.

Rather than having a frank discussion about the 47 million Americans without any health care coverage, 8 million of which are children, the Conservative media would have Americans talking about how long lines in a public health care system would lead to your grandmother’s death at the diabolical hands of Washington bureaucrats. These are clear examples of the Conservative media twisting the debate toward red herrings and accusations which actually have little to do with the health care debate and the theory of Socialism solely as a fear tactic used to terrify the American people into thoughts of an American murder machine.

The sad truth is that as concerned as Conservatives seem to be about the implications of public health care on the world of business, what they do not realize is that their campaign may be further hurting businesses in the end. Currently, General Motors spends more on health care than on steel per car. Imagine the amounts of innovation that could take place in the long struggling American automobile industry, often criticized for creating unappealing, unreliable, uneconomical gas guzzlers in a time when gas prices hover around $3.00 a gallon, if they were able to take the money they spend on employee healthcare and instead put it into the research and development of their automobiles. After all, cars, not bandages, drive GM’s profit line.

There is also the more simple fact that if people are ill they are unable work which in turn keeps them from making a living wage and ultimately keeps them from buying the goods and services provided by the businesses (both large corporations and small businesses) which the Conservatives seem to be constantly looking out for, further depleting the United States economy.

Rather than trying to re-define the term ‘Socialist’ Conservatives should be giving themselves some basic economic lessons and find better outlets for their great fear at the loss of power they have been feeling over the past year because Americans deserve to make intelligent, educated decisions about the future of their nation that take into account the effects on their own lives, without the pandering and fear-mongering of those power elite afraid to lose their status to a mixed-race President with the middle name Hussein.

This sudden spark of interest in a post from eleven days ago, along with its ridiculous assertions of Obama as a Socialist remind me of a statement by author and activist Bell Hooks in which she states:

“[t]he privileged act of naming often affords those in power access to modes of communication and enables them to project an interpretation, a definition, a description of their words and actions, that may not be accurate, that may obscure what is taking place.”

This is essentially what the Conservative media, who are fearful of losing their grasp over the American people under a Democratic White House, are doing to the American people. By repeatedly using the term Socialist in reference to President Obama without ever clearly defining the term, these Conservatives are devising a diabolical scheme to turn the American people against their President. The campaign to brand Obama as a ‘Socialist’ not only brings the Conservatives’ limited understanding of Socialism (which is elementary at best) to the forefront, but also turns the American people away from policies they would otherwise rationally support as in their own interest.

In trying to brand Obama as a Socialist without a clear discussion as to what the term truly implies, the Conservatives are both limiting the hoi polloi’s access to important theoretical works of Socialist thought due to a propaganda campaign of fear, and drastically altering the implications of the theory of Socialism.

The Conservative media is trying to use the bailouts of financial institutions and health care reform, among other policies, to try and brand President Barack Obama as a Socialist.

Rather than having a frank discussion about the 47 million Americans without any health care coverage, 8 million of which are children, the Conservative media would rather talk about how long lines in public health care system would lead to your grandmother’s death. These are clear examples of the Conservative media twisting the debate toward red herrings and accusations which actually have little to do with the health care debate and the theory of Socialism to try and create fear among the American people.

The sad truth is that as concerned as Conservatives seem to be about the implications of public health care on the world of business, what they do not realize is that their campaign may be further hurting businesses in the end. Currently, General Motors spends more on health care than on steel per car. Not to mention the basic fact that if people are ill they cannot come to work which keeps them from buying the goods and services that both large corporations and small business provide further depleting the United States economy.

Rather than trying to re-define the term ‘Socialist’ Conservatives should be giving themselves some basic economic lessons.

Check the semi-clever teaser trailer for his as yet untitled new bailout project below:

The people who created these crises or allowed them to happen either didn‘t look hard enough for the truth, or didn‘t listen to those voices that could tell them where the truth lived.

Full Transcript Here.

JOHN LEGEND PREPS THE CLASS OF 2009, PLUS SETS THE STAGE FOR VAUGHN ANTHONY [Sohh]

Once Daly realized that the economy is a growing subset of a non-growing planet, he had no choice but to sound the alarm. Humanity, he argued, had to shift to a steady-state economy, one in which demands placed on the ecosystem would remain safely in bounds. This would imply shifting economic policy from a focus on stoking growth, where the scale of physical demands on ecosystems perpetually increased, to a focus on development, meaning humanity would have to learn to make wiser use of a modest and more stable level of materials taken from the environment.

Adbusters‘ Person of the Year [Adbusters]

Sunday Secrets : November 29, 2008 [Postsecret]

Perhaps there’s another way. A shining example that has come out in the past fifty years, one that casts serious doubt on the Western no-holds-barred style, is the recent development of the principles of Islamic Finance. Based on Sharia law, which derives its authority from the Holy Qur’an, the principles of Islamic Finance have provided a beacon of clarity and common sense in good investment practices which are desperately needed here in the West.

I always find it interesting when someone else points out the merits and lessons that the West can take from the cult of the boogey men in the evening news.

If at its most basic level, Islamic Finance (and Islam in general) is about taking responsibility for the impact of the decisions one makes on the lives of others, and subsequently curbing desire, then it would serve to reason that adapting a system similar to Islamic Finance (if policy makers are too afraid to identify themselves in any way with the religion) would help America evade another situation like the one we are currently in. Of course, such a change would also require a dramatic shift in American culture about consumerism, ownership, responsibility, and impact.

: 39_D + 34_R + 1_I | 9_D + 15_R + 1_I

Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, Republican Presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, and Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Senator Joe Biden all cast “aye” votes.

How every Senator voted on “one of the most far-reaching interventions in the economy since the Great Depression”.

One good way I’ve heard the problem described is “privatize profits, socialize losses.” To the robber barons running the system, here’s the deal we-the-people had with them: heads you win, tails we lose (and we’ll pay for it all). What’s to keep someone from taking huge risks, with that upside-only arrangement?

Of course, it’s more complex than simple finger-pointing. The robber barons were playing the game made legal by the legislation passed by the people we elected. And the signs of this corruption have been visible for awhile, so maybe the people didn’t do enough to get it fixed. Maybe it’s time to “throw the bums out,” or maybe it‘s time just to pay more attention. I don’t know. The important question is what we create, starting now.

For my part, I’m still a hedgehog, sticking to the same old message, advocating for good experience: a simple, long-term, integrated approach that focuses on benefits outside a narrow self-centered view. I’ll continue, via the Gel conference, to spotlight creative leaders who take this approach.