Russell Brand

Recently, an interview was conducted between comedian Russell Brand and The BBC's Jeremy Paxman.  The discussion turned to Brand's views on the current political climate, consisting of an idealistic call for "massive redistributions of wealth" and the structural dismantling of the current political system, as well as a general rallying cry for social revolution.  As could be expected, this generated quite a fair bit of buzz on social media sites among the college-aged demographic.

I've given this subject some amount of thought, as there are several angles worth considering when approaching the message delivered. 
For the sake of being inflammatory, I will first discuss my problems with Mr. Brand's arguments, beginning on the petty end of the spectrum. 
From my perspective, the biggest issue is a lack of depth in Brand's understanding of the social constructs he is discussing.

I've heard many of the same arguments made in very similar fashion during my days in undergraduate studies (mostly by students after their first semester of introduction sociology courses).

Russell Brand is, to my own understanding, ideologically cut from the same cloth as a freshman year university student during winter break.  He has heard enough organized academic discourse on the subject to piecemeal together several $5 words that begin with the same letter, but is far enough removed from the reality which he is discussing to display overabundant bravery and authority in his claims without the burden of functionality.

This follows a troublesome trend in American political discourse; that of an excess of "Problem Identifiers".

Every person with access to a microphone and an audience in the country seems to be falling over themselves to point out issues, discuss the root causes of the issues ad nauseum (i.e. who's to blame), and proclaim the way things "should be".   The big problem with this is that rarely does anyone ever walk up to a problem with a measure of common sense and propose a practical, tangible solution.

That wouldn't make for sexy talking points.

It seems much simpler and safer to write an observed problem on a chalkboard, circle it with permanent marker, and continue to slap the board with a yardstick.

To this end, I completely agree with Russell in his absolute disgust with "the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations now and has now reached a fever pitch" and an American people "not being represented by that political system".
As a matter of fact, I agree with every word he says regarding the lack of responsibility displayed by elected leaders to serve the will of the people whom they are intended to represent.

However, I fundamentally disagree with him on how to address the atrociously negative trends in our political system.

He references several times the economic disparity within our culture, and the creation of an "underclass".  By this, I'm assuming that he is highlighting the fact that both wealthy people and impoverished people exist in society.
There has always been rich and poor. 
There will always be rich and poor. 
There are reasons for this. 
This is not a new concept. 
Economic distinction is an inherent aspect of any society, and you cannot legislate wealth to those who don't have it.  This has never proven to be an effective long term solution.  You can provide opportunity for people to work their way to a better quality of life.  In my opinion, the most effective way of accomplishing this is to remove as many obstacles as possible (including government intervention) and let people achieve what they are willing to work for.

Additionally, it has been shown that government restricting/punishing corporations for existing rarely, if ever, promotes positive social development.
Corporations were small businesses that were more fruitful and grew and advanced.  They employ people, and they provide services.  They should be held accountable for their actions, but not reprimanded by federal entities for being a corporation.

Brand calls for a revolution.  I call for a returning to the foundational principles that our nation was built upon.
Instead of legislating our perception of "fairness" or "deserved economic equality" at the expense of those who have attained monetary success, we need to attack the problem with solutions that are tactile and long-term.  Money can be spent, but instilled and established values can shape a country.
Instead of attempting to create a "socialistic egalitarian society", we need to promote and create a culture of individuals who adorn the mantle of personal responsibility for their lives and surroundings. 
To my understanding, this is the most effective way to create a system of extended benefit for all willing and able to be involved.



Brand then goes on to discuss the mechanism of "profit", and how it is the corrupting force within our society.
I will touch on this in my next post.

Writing

I woke up one morning and realized that I enjoy writing.
Always the finished product, and less often the process. 
Ernest Hemingway said, "There is no rule on how to write.  Sometimes it comes easily and perfectly; sometimes it's like drilling rock and then blasting it out with charges."
However, I always find personal fulfillment and satisfaction in the act of creating something that I first had to envision. 

I am going to attempt to adhere myself to a more disciplined structure of writing, which will involve this webpage. 
I tried this in the past, by trying to think of the blog as a form of journal.  That actually served as a deterrent for me because I'm not big on sharing, and because my life is not all that engaging. 

The current course of action will be to write informed bits on current events, social constructs, political studies, etc., both for practice and for fun.

My goal is to say something worth saying, if I can.