To anyone who only follows me via this blog I apologize. I've been trying to figure out how to word something without it sounding like a winy mess. Thanks to the Colbert Report/Daily Show and Rush Limbaugh I finally have it.
I have filed to run for Missouri's 133rd state legislative office instead of my (mostly performance art) campaign against Billy Long. In announcing I wanted to make yet another critique of the media. I wanted to show you how they are responsible for a candidate like Billy Long. But the words failed me.
Rush Limbaugh made me realize my tone was all wrong. I can't take Limbaugh seriously, though maybe I should. To me he is the political equivalent of Gwar.
He is so over the top that I can't help but believe most of his audience knows what he is saying if fiction. The scary part should be that Republican candidates don't seem to be in on the joke. Gwar is funny because it is satire of the whole idea of being METAL. But Republican candidates seem to think that Limbaugh isn't an exaggeration. They think he is just saying what people actually believe but are too PC to say.
I would hope this isn't the case. I would hope fans of Rush see a kernel of truth in what he says and understand it to be just a kernel. Satire is about seeing the truth in something comedic. Because it is easier to make fun of something than explain it.
Mitt Romney is someone who doesn't see Limbaugh as satire. In response Limbaugh's rant calling Sandra Fluke a slut/prostitute, Romney said "Those aren't the words I would have used"
This is where my point comes in. Our media doesn't ask candidates like Romney or Billy Long questions to make them think about what they think. Romney should have to explain what the kernel of truth is that Rush Limbaugh was getting at with his tirade about this young woman.
Romney's throwaway answer sounds like he agrees with the personal attack on Fluke instead of only agreeing that a church shouldn't have to pay for birth control. As a leader Romney should be volleyed questions that allow him to point out where the line between policy and satire are for people who don't see it.
He should be asked questions that allow us to see he actually understands what is going on in our culture and how to offer solutions to solve those issues.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
How Obama will outsmart himself
Yes Obama is in over his head because the mess left was above anyone's head. Bush really messed everything up. That is exactly why Obama should do what is right even if it doesn't seem like it's smart for trying to become re-elected. Obama has been too cautious in my mind.
That alone should not mean he should not be elected. There is a difference between what we should expect and what we should never accept. And unfortunately even if we never accept some of the things he's done doesn't mean he isn't the lesser of evils. But in not criticizing him openly we forever doom ourselves to choose evil.
It's a disservice to Obama. I believe he is a good man but he is governing by what he sees as left of his challengers.
Andrew Sullivan recently put up an article about what a genius Obama is for running this way. Here are some foot notes of mine:
*Sullivan criticizes the 'radical left' of being disappointed that Obama didn't revolutionize everything. Most people don't actually hear from the 'radical left'. They never supported Obama. There is nothing radical about expecting Obama to live up to his own hype. If it was radical Sullivan would be a radical for supporting him when he said it or a shitty journalist for not telling the rest of us that Obama really meant something more mediocre.
*It is true that Republican candidates are making up how Marxist Obama is. They have chosen to run against an Obama that doesn't exist. Obama is a centrist (nothing wrong with that) and no matter how far he bends to prove he is not a radical leftist they continue to campaign against him as if he is.
*It is true that Obama doesn't get enough credit for actions like buying GM. It seems to have worked. But Obama has also done too much waiting to see what Congress will send him. I blame the fact that he has surrounded himself with the same kind of aspiring lobbyist and yes men that previous administrations have. During the election we were given the impression that this would be an administration of academics. It isn't that I am saying that academics would necessarily have better solutions. But they'd be offering different solutions.
*Though it's nice that Obama will be able to call the GOP nominee a liar about raising taxes. Wouldn't it have been better to raise taxes on the top 1% and say "If I raised your taxes don't vote for me"? It's fine not to raise taxes if you don't believe it will help but Obama keeps saying one thing and doing another.
*Sullivan: "But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war." true enough. Though Obama also continues a show of force while proving over and over that is not the way to win modern warfare and 'winning the hearts and minds'
*Sullivan is also right to say that " From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, " But Obama hasn't been very good about finding common ground. Instead of passing a huge medical bill he could have broke it up and passed the components that would be foolish for congress to vote against. Yeah he got health care through but he could have gotten through more things like hiring more patent clerks if he didn't call in so many favors on healthcare.
The other thing is that Obama has started all his negotiations from the center instead of starting from where he says he believes and forcing the other side to work to the center with him.
* "Liberals have derided him as a captive of Wall Street," That is because of the way Obama has done business. Monsanto is going to be able to save money on lobbyist now that Obama has hired one of their guys to run the EPA. Yes business people are smart and knowledgable. But you can't let them both advise you and lobby to you on how to regulate them.
*Personally I don't expect Obama to grandstand. I expect reasonable results from him. I expect a lot out of him because we pay him a lot of money and pay for him to have a very big staff. I'll give him that he is probably one of our best presidents of my lifetime but that is a very low bar considering the resources available to him.
*Ending torture does not give Obama a free pass on indefinite detention. Because guess what the next president can bring torture back and doesn't have to worry about the prisoner telling anyone because they are never getting out of solitary confinement.
It may seem easy for me to sit here and criticize the president and his defenders. But I am running for office as a dare to see if I can do better. And I can guarantee that even if I do accomplish more than what we've come to expect, I will be still riddled with guilt over what more I could have done.
We should never be complacent with our elected officials because that is when they begin to slide backwards.
That alone should not mean he should not be elected. There is a difference between what we should expect and what we should never accept. And unfortunately even if we never accept some of the things he's done doesn't mean he isn't the lesser of evils. But in not criticizing him openly we forever doom ourselves to choose evil.
It's a disservice to Obama. I believe he is a good man but he is governing by what he sees as left of his challengers.
Andrew Sullivan recently put up an article about what a genius Obama is for running this way. Here are some foot notes of mine:
*Sullivan criticizes the 'radical left' of being disappointed that Obama didn't revolutionize everything. Most people don't actually hear from the 'radical left'. They never supported Obama. There is nothing radical about expecting Obama to live up to his own hype. If it was radical Sullivan would be a radical for supporting him when he said it or a shitty journalist for not telling the rest of us that Obama really meant something more mediocre.
*It is true that Republican candidates are making up how Marxist Obama is. They have chosen to run against an Obama that doesn't exist. Obama is a centrist (nothing wrong with that) and no matter how far he bends to prove he is not a radical leftist they continue to campaign against him as if he is.
*It is true that Obama doesn't get enough credit for actions like buying GM. It seems to have worked. But Obama has also done too much waiting to see what Congress will send him. I blame the fact that he has surrounded himself with the same kind of aspiring lobbyist and yes men that previous administrations have. During the election we were given the impression that this would be an administration of academics. It isn't that I am saying that academics would necessarily have better solutions. But they'd be offering different solutions.
*Though it's nice that Obama will be able to call the GOP nominee a liar about raising taxes. Wouldn't it have been better to raise taxes on the top 1% and say "If I raised your taxes don't vote for me"? It's fine not to raise taxes if you don't believe it will help but Obama keeps saying one thing and doing another.
*Sullivan: "But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war." true enough. Though Obama also continues a show of force while proving over and over that is not the way to win modern warfare and 'winning the hearts and minds'
*Sullivan is also right to say that " From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, " But Obama hasn't been very good about finding common ground. Instead of passing a huge medical bill he could have broke it up and passed the components that would be foolish for congress to vote against. Yeah he got health care through but he could have gotten through more things like hiring more patent clerks if he didn't call in so many favors on healthcare.
The other thing is that Obama has started all his negotiations from the center instead of starting from where he says he believes and forcing the other side to work to the center with him.
* "Liberals have derided him as a captive of Wall Street," That is because of the way Obama has done business. Monsanto is going to be able to save money on lobbyist now that Obama has hired one of their guys to run the EPA. Yes business people are smart and knowledgable. But you can't let them both advise you and lobby to you on how to regulate them.
*Personally I don't expect Obama to grandstand. I expect reasonable results from him. I expect a lot out of him because we pay him a lot of money and pay for him to have a very big staff. I'll give him that he is probably one of our best presidents of my lifetime but that is a very low bar considering the resources available to him.
*Ending torture does not give Obama a free pass on indefinite detention. Because guess what the next president can bring torture back and doesn't have to worry about the prisoner telling anyone because they are never getting out of solitary confinement.
It may seem easy for me to sit here and criticize the president and his defenders. But I am running for office as a dare to see if I can do better. And I can guarantee that even if I do accomplish more than what we've come to expect, I will be still riddled with guilt over what more I could have done.
We should never be complacent with our elected officials because that is when they begin to slide backwards.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Springfield E-Verify
I attended the League of Women Voters forum on the E-verify ordinance we'll be voting on next Tuesday. The evening began with the City Council explaining the petition process and then the City Legal Adviser who explained that the ordinance will probably be overturned in Missouri courts.
The debate was mostly over what degree of pointless the bill will be since it is unenforceable and as far as anyone can tell illegal immigration is not really a problem in Springfield.
The event was pretty information light. But I did walk away with a with some new thoughts on the subject of this ordinance:
*The bill seems to try to try and bypass due process- issuing a 20 day suspension of business licence on the first offence. My understanding is that is automatic not upon being found guilty.
*As I said above the Missouri Supreme court is likely to favor challenges. This may result in the city being sued for 20 days of lost earnings...
*In opening statements the supporters said that the ordinance wouldn't cost anything to tax payers, but later admitted giving the financial department more responsibility does have a cost. To me this is the crux of the argument because it will cost the city money with little possibility of having results.
*The representative from the minutemen repeatedly described illegal immigration as insidious. But what seems more insidious to me is forcing business owners sign oaths to participate with a program that doesn't work (e-verify has a history of false positives). Maybe I was reading a little too much between the lines but some of what was said reminded me of The Red Scare.
*The real winners of this bill would be neighboring cities. The biggest employers in Springfield are call centers. Call centers have a high turnover rate. Forcing them to do more paperwork can be very expensive in the long run.
*At one point it was brought up that E-verify could take several weeks to process someone. Waiting a few weeks to start a job is annoying and when you're scraping by it's frightening.
*The problem would be better addressed by cracking down on identity theft not illegal immigrants.
*Both sides agree that the proposed ordinance needs to be fixed, but the supporters would rather have a bad law passed than start over. Remember both sides agree that this isn't an urgent problem in Springfield, though supporters insist it's worst than anyone thinks.
The debate was mostly over what degree of pointless the bill will be since it is unenforceable and as far as anyone can tell illegal immigration is not really a problem in Springfield.
The event was pretty information light. But I did walk away with a with some new thoughts on the subject of this ordinance:
*The bill seems to try to try and bypass due process- issuing a 20 day suspension of business licence on the first offence. My understanding is that is automatic not upon being found guilty.
*As I said above the Missouri Supreme court is likely to favor challenges. This may result in the city being sued for 20 days of lost earnings...
*In opening statements the supporters said that the ordinance wouldn't cost anything to tax payers, but later admitted giving the financial department more responsibility does have a cost. To me this is the crux of the argument because it will cost the city money with little possibility of having results.
*The representative from the minutemen repeatedly described illegal immigration as insidious. But what seems more insidious to me is forcing business owners sign oaths to participate with a program that doesn't work (e-verify has a history of false positives). Maybe I was reading a little too much between the lines but some of what was said reminded me of The Red Scare.
*The real winners of this bill would be neighboring cities. The biggest employers in Springfield are call centers. Call centers have a high turnover rate. Forcing them to do more paperwork can be very expensive in the long run.
*At one point it was brought up that E-verify could take several weeks to process someone. Waiting a few weeks to start a job is annoying and when you're scraping by it's frightening.
*The problem would be better addressed by cracking down on identity theft not illegal immigrants.
*Both sides agree that the proposed ordinance needs to be fixed, but the supporters would rather have a bad law passed than start over. Remember both sides agree that this isn't an urgent problem in Springfield, though supporters insist it's worst than anyone thinks.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The last Crawl- SOPA
"If you can't say fuck, You can't say 'Fuck the government!'"
-Lenny Bruce
I wrote about SOPA before but I want to put a more personal touch on it. Though the danger has passed for now we're not out of the woods on this issue because there is no reason to believe it is gone for good.
If SOPA is passed then CRAWLERS will be finished.
Crawlers doesn't violate any copyright laws. But because I am drawing inspiration from my experiences playing games LIKE D&D, Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro could have my site shut down. I wouldn't get recourse until after the fact.
Because the host for Crawlers, Comic Fury, allows anyone to upload content of their choosing; Comic Fury could be shut down by SOPA. Original content created with video game sprites and toys are common on sites like Comic Fury. Though they are a legal grey area, if SOPA were passed, Comic Fury could be shut down because of some of the users creating work from the work of others.
If SOPA is passed then my political site could be finished.
In the economics section of my political site I have a parody of the famous Burt Reynolds Playgirl shoot. Clearly this should be protected by Parody law. But what if Hef had a beef with me? He could shut down my site and there wouldn't be anything I could do about it because I can't afford lawyers to navigate through the bureaucracy.
Monday, January 2, 2012
A year in (p)review
I like to experiment with media. That's my thing. So I start a lot of projects (like the video above) and tinker with them, sometimes for years, before I have a finished project. Not the most efficient way to work but that's my process. Even when you don't see a lot of work from me, I'm working on a lot of it.
Last year I threw out some possibilities for resolutions. Let's take a look to see if I actually did any of them.
Finish Ron Paul's A Foreign Policy of Freedom; Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship
I think I read less of this book than I have in any previous year. My wife got me a subscription to Rolling Stone for $2 and that replaced Paul as my bathroom reader.
2012?
That subscription is running out but I don't see me picking up the pace on reading this book.
Finish drawing Crawlers
Not only did I not get as far ahead on Crawlers as I hoped, there is no end in sight. Well I know how the series is going to end but I am not sure how many pages it's going to take. It's possible to do in five chapters/sessions but not likely with everything I have to say.
2012?
I'll continue to stay on task, updating Crawlers twice a week, but I'm not going to get a head that far while taking on other projects. Crawlers is a hobby. It's designed to be something I do while watching TV with my wife and I don't plan on watching more TV.
Publish MENTAL
I did very little work on MENTAL. I did look into getting it on the Kindle but didn't get that far into it.
2012?
Probably not. My new plan for MENTAL is to start up the other books as Crawlers winds down.
Publish NILvsDCbs
Not only did my old computer die fall of last year but I had to reformat my computer last January. It took me a month to find most of my files for the campaign site.
2012?
I do plan on finishing the website whether I ultimately stay in or not (I'm looking at dropping out to run for state legislature) but publishing it will take a lot of devotion of time. The pages for NILvsDCbs are very tall and formatting them for the page will be a lot of obsessing over design.
Lose weight
I did not get below 200 but I did loose 10 pounds last September and it hasn't come back. So almost halfway there...
2012?
With another baby on the way I don't know how this will work. The biggest factor is if my bike get fixed and I am able to ride it.
TBA (Running for Congress)
I was hoping by now to have my facebook campaign page at 500 followers and to have the webpage finished. I'm two comics away from finishing all the policy comics and I'm at 300 followers.
2012?
I'm looking at running for state legislature which would be a completely different set of benchmarks. By the end of this year I'll know whether or not I won. The hard thing for me is doing everything in my power to make this happen without making that the reason to run. This year has shown me that it is sometimes hard to know if the desire to win is tainting the message.
STANDING RESOLUTION
As I said last year I have a standing resolution to complete two drawings a day. I came close if I didn't make it. In October I started a spreadsheet to track it so I'll know for sure next year.
2012?
I'm looking into doing some animation projects for HitRecord.org Animation is really hard to measure because it's easy to cheat and count each frame as a seperate drawing but on the other hand, it's hard to say when one frame becomes a separate drawing.
RESOLUTIONS FOR 2012?
I'm an over-reacher. I will never be happy with my accomplishments because I can always see room for improvement in myself. It's why I think I'll make a good public servant. Because I do this without being overly concerned with which goal will make the most money.
2011 was a busy year. I was in a lot of meetings/protests. I have a lot of projects in various stages. I was published in a comic anthology. I put up two Crawlers for every week (and they were posted as close to on time as technology allowed).
2012 I'm going to spend a lot of time doing serious campaigning. Up until now it's been about networking and figuring out where the obstacles are. Now it's about beating them.
On the art side I am going to try and get at least one piece published through HitRecord.org , keep up on Crawlers, and finish one or two other projects.
I'll keep you posted
Friday, December 30, 2011
Breaking the law for the right reasons
This is one of those things I was surprised I haven't written about it before. Torture isn't on the front page right now, but this speaks to something bigger.
When is it right to break the law?
I can think of a lot of scenerios where I would root for a law breaker. But my personal feelings should not be the basis for when to apply the "rule of law". Oh now I need to explain that...
"The Rule of Law" is the idea that we must enforce the law even if it is wrong because once we stop enforcing the law it will be anarchy. I would agree but most of the time the phrase is being used selectively. Law enforcement tends to focus on petty infractions of the masses instead of reigning abuses of power. Republican politicians care an awful lot about the rule of law when it comes to immigration but not on torture or due process.
Let's focus on torture because it is something I have a different opinion on than most.
My grandfather was in WWII and he successfully tortured a man while other soldiers were having Germans surrender to them because we don't torture. I'm not sure what my grandfather did but he felt badly about it late into his life.
As I remember the story the position of my grandfather's camp kept being discovered after they would move (My grandfather was a grunt but because he spoke Polish a lot of his stories have an intelligence aspect). The unit captured a German and learned by torturing him that the British soldiers were giving away the position of the camp because they were breaking the no fire rule to make tea. They made a new rule to shoot at fire even if it was from within the camp.
My take on this story isn't that torture works. I think it worked because the prisoner thought my grandfather was crazy. You've heard of good cop bad cop? American soldiers had a reputation for being good so it must have freaked this guy out to be treated like that. Black was white, water was dry...an American tortured was torturing him.
Does this mean I support torture as long as it isn't "Official Policy"? Absolutely not. When the law is enforced with a nudge and a wink word gets out pretty quickly, especially today. It doesn't matter whether torture CAN work or not. We need to prosecute it.
We think of our soldiers, police, and firemen as heroes because they are willing to sacrifice their lives for the rest of us but it is unthinkable that they should go to jail. As a society we must prosecute law breakers, even when we agree with them.
If you are so sure torturing someone will stop a terrorist plot- be ready to go to jail for it. It's a risk-benefit calculation you'll have to make just like many Occupy protesters have made. And most notably Bradly Manning.
Manning is the soldier thought to have been behind a Wikileak. The leaked information included video of US soldiers firing at journalists in Iraq. This information was clearly leaked because it's wrong. And the person behind it felt strongly enough about it to risk his/her career and worse.
Manning has definitely faced the worse. He hasn't had a trial. He's kept in isolation and basically being treated like a terror suspect in Gitmo. This is where ignoring the rule of law gets you. The government breaking the law but in such small increments that it just becomes normal.
When is it right to break the law?
I can think of a lot of scenerios where I would root for a law breaker. But my personal feelings should not be the basis for when to apply the "rule of law". Oh now I need to explain that...
"The Rule of Law" is the idea that we must enforce the law even if it is wrong because once we stop enforcing the law it will be anarchy. I would agree but most of the time the phrase is being used selectively. Law enforcement tends to focus on petty infractions of the masses instead of reigning abuses of power. Republican politicians care an awful lot about the rule of law when it comes to immigration but not on torture or due process.
Let's focus on torture because it is something I have a different opinion on than most.
My grandfather was in WWII and he successfully tortured a man while other soldiers were having Germans surrender to them because we don't torture. I'm not sure what my grandfather did but he felt badly about it late into his life.
As I remember the story the position of my grandfather's camp kept being discovered after they would move (My grandfather was a grunt but because he spoke Polish a lot of his stories have an intelligence aspect). The unit captured a German and learned by torturing him that the British soldiers were giving away the position of the camp because they were breaking the no fire rule to make tea. They made a new rule to shoot at fire even if it was from within the camp.
My take on this story isn't that torture works. I think it worked because the prisoner thought my grandfather was crazy. You've heard of good cop bad cop? American soldiers had a reputation for being good so it must have freaked this guy out to be treated like that. Black was white, water was dry...an American tortured was torturing him.
Does this mean I support torture as long as it isn't "Official Policy"? Absolutely not. When the law is enforced with a nudge and a wink word gets out pretty quickly, especially today. It doesn't matter whether torture CAN work or not. We need to prosecute it.
We think of our soldiers, police, and firemen as heroes because they are willing to sacrifice their lives for the rest of us but it is unthinkable that they should go to jail. As a society we must prosecute law breakers, even when we agree with them.
If you are so sure torturing someone will stop a terrorist plot- be ready to go to jail for it. It's a risk-benefit calculation you'll have to make just like many Occupy protesters have made. And most notably Bradly Manning.
Manning is the soldier thought to have been behind a Wikileak. The leaked information included video of US soldiers firing at journalists in Iraq. This information was clearly leaked because it's wrong. And the person behind it felt strongly enough about it to risk his/her career and worse.
Manning has definitely faced the worse. He hasn't had a trial. He's kept in isolation and basically being treated like a terror suspect in Gitmo. This is where ignoring the rule of law gets you. The government breaking the law but in such small increments that it just becomes normal.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Atlas Shrugged
Shortly after high school two of my oldest friends were all about Ayn Rand in much the same way they were excited about Marx a few years before. Meaning it didn't last long. It was long enough that I read a couple of her books but I never got around to her most well known works The Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged. The latter is now a movie which I was able to pick up for free thanks to all these Red Box codes I have.
First as a movie I can sum it up in two words: Kinda Cheesy. The acting is wooden and the main character is a sort of Mary Sue, named Dagny. The plot is more like a water cooler joke than a plot twist. And the source material is obviously old because it doesn't seem to recognize innovations of the past fifty something years. Basically all I liked was the cinematography.
As a darling of conservative literature, in fact, a bible to some. I get it. There is nothing elusive about the point Atlas Shrugged is pretty clear. If you know a little bit about Rand it is more extreme than you might think. Rand believes in the virtue of selfishness. There is some sense to this, it must be the prerogative of a business to make money. Steve Jobs wanted to have factories in the US but he couldn't figure out how to make money doing it.
Where I branch from conservatives is the counterpoint to the film. The villian of the movie is government regulation that attempts to make everything "fair". But it's just as easy to walk away with the lesson that it is corporate influence of government which is evil, because all the regulations that strangle these companies are passed because of one company trying to snuff out it's competition instead of innovating.
Ayn Rand is a guilty pleasure for many of her fans. The philosophy that rich people are our "heroes" because they are ruthless is a hard one to be sympathetic with because in arguing that everyone at the top is smarter and works harder there is a heavy implication that those who have not succeeded are lazy and stupid. I haven't read the book so I don't know how heavily it's implied, but there's more.
Social Conservatives would probably not be big fans of Atlas Shrugged as a philosophy lesson. A married man having an affair is something that happens in both literature and life. But when it happens in Atlas Shrugged it is Rand's ham handed philosophy at work. The virtue of selfishness extends even to interpersonal relationships in Rand's eyes and an affair is perfectly legitimate (Unless it's Rand's lover with a younger prettier woman from what I understand).
And finally history is against Atlas Shrugged. Published in 1957 Atlas Shrugged has had the problem of technology surpassing it. The plot revolves around a metal that is ten times lighter and stronger than steel. We have those metals now and they were developed by the government that Rand's followers constantly put down. As I've said before, most of the innovations our economy are based on came from tax payer money.
It isn't that Rand fails as a philosopher, she's given us an interesting perspective on the world, and that is all we should expect of her. The problem is when philosophers gain acolytes, who take the philosophy too literally. Yes there are pragmatic benefits to being selfish. But there are also consequences. That is why the government is supposed to administer justice. So business people can push the envelope and Feds can reign them in. The problem we face now is that the people haven't reigned in the government. Selfishness of the government is tyranny.
Where I branch from conservatives is the counterpoint to the film. The villian of the movie is government regulation that attempts to make everything "fair". But it's just as easy to walk away with the lesson that it is corporate influence of government which is evil, because all the regulations that strangle these companies are passed because of one company trying to snuff out it's competition instead of innovating.
Ayn Rand is a guilty pleasure for many of her fans. The philosophy that rich people are our "heroes" because they are ruthless is a hard one to be sympathetic with because in arguing that everyone at the top is smarter and works harder there is a heavy implication that those who have not succeeded are lazy and stupid. I haven't read the book so I don't know how heavily it's implied, but there's more.
Social Conservatives would probably not be big fans of Atlas Shrugged as a philosophy lesson. A married man having an affair is something that happens in both literature and life. But when it happens in Atlas Shrugged it is Rand's ham handed philosophy at work. The virtue of selfishness extends even to interpersonal relationships in Rand's eyes and an affair is perfectly legitimate (Unless it's Rand's lover with a younger prettier woman from what I understand).
And finally history is against Atlas Shrugged. Published in 1957 Atlas Shrugged has had the problem of technology surpassing it. The plot revolves around a metal that is ten times lighter and stronger than steel. We have those metals now and they were developed by the government that Rand's followers constantly put down. As I've said before, most of the innovations our economy are based on came from tax payer money.
It isn't that Rand fails as a philosopher, she's given us an interesting perspective on the world, and that is all we should expect of her. The problem is when philosophers gain acolytes, who take the philosophy too literally. Yes there are pragmatic benefits to being selfish. But there are also consequences. That is why the government is supposed to administer justice. So business people can push the envelope and Feds can reign them in. The problem we face now is that the people haven't reigned in the government. Selfishness of the government is tyranny.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Who are the 1%
Besides the fact that "We are the 99%" is fairly vague, there are people invested in twisting the meaning (many of them are our elected officials). The most heinous example is the meme that 1% of citizens join the armed forces. It became obvious that the Occupy Movement isn't an anti-military movement when shortly after the meme came out a marine was nearly killed by Oakland PD.
Who are the 1% being protested against then? Technically it's the people making $380,354 or more a year. But in practical terms 95% of that top percent are not the problem. The Occupy movement is a direct response to the Citizens United ruling, so it isn't the fact that people make too much money. The Occupy movement is against using big piles of money to manipulate the political system. Only .05% do this so "We are the 99%" is a misnomer.
If rich people stuck to buying yachts and creating jobs there wouldn't be any beef with them. Think about that image in your mind of an Occupier. Does s/he have a hacky sack and a drum? What would they do with more money? This is clearly not a jealousy thing.
Seriously though the people being protested against are the aggressors. They have taken more than their fair share and fix the game so no one else can play. And they are in defensible. Most of the people we are talking about are not job creators. They are speculators. It is not healthy for the economy to create incentives to be part of this group because their wealth is the most susceptible to bubbles.
The 1% was hardest hit by the recession because their wealth is mostly smoke and mirrors. Their investments are numbers games without substance. When the bottom fell out of the economy many of them were underwater like any other american. Banks have more private jets and yachts to repossess than they know what to do with.
And that is the cost to the 99%. When a rich person fails the bank doesn't even want to deal with their property. Either they have lawyers that keep the assets tied up or the ticket price is so high that the bank doesn't want to bother trying to find a buyer for the liquidation (because they're unwilling to sell it for the amount it's actually worth without hurting the value of neighboring properties). So the banks recoup their loss by going after the middle class or what little the lower class have.
It's class warfare because the 99% are tired of having the bad decisions of the .05% being taken out on them.
Who are the 1% being protested against then? Technically it's the people making $380,354 or more a year. But in practical terms 95% of that top percent are not the problem. The Occupy movement is a direct response to the Citizens United ruling, so it isn't the fact that people make too much money. The Occupy movement is against using big piles of money to manipulate the political system. Only .05% do this so "We are the 99%" is a misnomer.
If rich people stuck to buying yachts and creating jobs there wouldn't be any beef with them. Think about that image in your mind of an Occupier. Does s/he have a hacky sack and a drum? What would they do with more money? This is clearly not a jealousy thing.
Seriously though the people being protested against are the aggressors. They have taken more than their fair share and fix the game so no one else can play. And they are in defensible. Most of the people we are talking about are not job creators. They are speculators. It is not healthy for the economy to create incentives to be part of this group because their wealth is the most susceptible to bubbles.
The 1% was hardest hit by the recession because their wealth is mostly smoke and mirrors. Their investments are numbers games without substance. When the bottom fell out of the economy many of them were underwater like any other american. Banks have more private jets and yachts to repossess than they know what to do with.
And that is the cost to the 99%. When a rich person fails the bank doesn't even want to deal with their property. Either they have lawyers that keep the assets tied up or the ticket price is so high that the bank doesn't want to bother trying to find a buyer for the liquidation (because they're unwilling to sell it for the amount it's actually worth without hurting the value of neighboring properties). So the banks recoup their loss by going after the middle class or what little the lower class have.
It's class warfare because the 99% are tired of having the bad decisions of the .05% being taken out on them.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Constitutional Challenge: the war on drugs
My wife has been watching Breaking Bad and there is a scene where the main character Walter is talking to his brother about Cuban cigars and how arbitrary the line is between legal and illegal. For some reason this scene threw some fuel to my passion against the war on drugs.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about how a legal challenge to the drug war would go (because it's remotely possible that I will not be elected to congress). This may seem like an unlikely way to attack the war on drugs but people forget how much change Ralph Nader made as a citizen with a pack of like minded lawyers.
This is the approach I would take if I had a pack of like minded lawyers who would know if I am actually on to something here or not.
For the sake of the article I am only arguing for the legalization of marijuana because it clearly doesn't pose any public health risk outside of the fact that it is illegal/controlled by criminals. If precedence is set legalizing other substances can also be tested in court.
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed.
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
A while ago I had the idea that the 21st amendment should be applied to the war on drugs. But when I reread it I realized that it doesn't repeal prohibition as I remembered, it repealed the 18th amendment.
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished.
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Looking at the 18th amendment it is clearly Abolishing alcohol. I fail to see how I could make a convincing argument that it also should also apply to the prohibition of marijuana. But then I realized the argument shouldn't be made on the 21st amendment but on the existence of the 18th
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I was always told in Social Studies that the 21st amendment is the only amendment to overturn another, but it could be argued that the reason for the 18th amendment was passed to allow an exclusion to the limit of federal powers placed by the the 10th amendment. If prohibition was allowed by the exception of interstate commerce than why was it passed as an amendment?
If this ruling was passed in favor of my argument this would set drug policy back down to state level. Or that is my non lawyer understanding of it.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about how a legal challenge to the drug war would go (because it's remotely possible that I will not be elected to congress). This may seem like an unlikely way to attack the war on drugs but people forget how much change Ralph Nader made as a citizen with a pack of like minded lawyers.
This is the approach I would take if I had a pack of like minded lawyers who would know if I am actually on to something here or not.
For the sake of the article I am only arguing for the legalization of marijuana because it clearly doesn't pose any public health risk outside of the fact that it is illegal/controlled by criminals. If precedence is set legalizing other substances can also be tested in court.
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed.
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
A while ago I had the idea that the 21st amendment should be applied to the war on drugs. But when I reread it I realized that it doesn't repeal prohibition as I remembered, it repealed the 18th amendment.
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished.
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Looking at the 18th amendment it is clearly Abolishing alcohol. I fail to see how I could make a convincing argument that it also should also apply to the prohibition of marijuana. But then I realized the argument shouldn't be made on the 21st amendment but on the existence of the 18th
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I was always told in Social Studies that the 21st amendment is the only amendment to overturn another, but it could be argued that the reason for the 18th amendment was passed to allow an exclusion to the limit of federal powers placed by the the 10th amendment. If prohibition was allowed by the exception of interstate commerce than why was it passed as an amendment?
If this ruling was passed in favor of my argument this would set drug policy back down to state level. Or that is my non lawyer understanding of it.
Friday, December 16, 2011
National Debt
I wasn't sure how to open a comic about National Debt to people who are not really into politics. I've been stuck on it for a very long time and I finally decided just to write what I was feeling the one day and hope it resonates as on topic http://www.nilvsdcbs.com/nationaldebt.html
Monday, December 12, 2011
Arrrrr de media
As someone who has wanted to be a comic artist for their entire life, I know a thing or two about copyright law and intellectual property. So I was a little infuriated when I received this e-mail
Dear Mr. Ladendorf,
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding S. 968, Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act and H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act. I sincerely appreciate the benefit of your views.
S. 968, and its House companion bill H.R. 3261, would allow the Attorney General to bring additional judicial remedies against websites dedicated to intellectual property right infringement. It would enable the Department of Homeland Security to share information which would facilitate the prosecution of copyright infringers existing outside the United States or which cannot be located. The measure would also grant limited immunity to victims of property right infringement to take preventative actions against infringing entities, such as denying them access to services. I will closely monitor this bill as it moves through the legislative process and in that context your views are very helpful.
I am a strong believer in protecting property rights, including intellectual property rights. The internet has unfortunately made it easier for certain types of intellectual property to be stolen by persons in jurisdictions outside the reach of American law enforcement. I also have concerns about the proliferation of criminal conduct on the internet, including internet viruses which can steal information or damage equipment. However, I want to stress that I am very sensitive to concerns about personal privacy, especially when the entity invading a person's privacy is the government. We should uphold the law, but I do not want to impose unforeseen burdens on the internet which could stifle the growth of the internet medium.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Hearing the views of all Missourians gives me the opportunity to better understand how important issues could impact the people of the Seventh district and the future interests of the nation.
For additional information regarding current legislation and my representation of the Seventh District, I invite you to visit my website at http://www.long.house.gov, and to receive my monthly newsletter, you can sign up on mywebsite.
Sincerely,Billy LongMember of Congress
This stance by Mr. Long is predictable because of his consistant genuflecting toward big business. This letter is misguided and misleading. This law does not protect business it gives them a nuclear option. Here are a list of my concerns
- The piracy threat is over stated. The music industry and others site how much they've lost to piracy based on how much material is being downloaded- not considering once that the people downloading media for free would have never paid for the media in the first place. Someone with a hundred thousand songs on their computer is unlikely to have bought 100,000 albums. And frankly the reason iTunes has done so well is because it's reasonably priced. The music industry has been ripping off the public for a long time and a very little portion of the price of an album goes to the artist.
-Intellectual property law insists on aggressive defense of property or it will fall into public domain. Because of how powerful SOPA is, it could very well FORCE BUSINESSES TO ATTACK THEIR CUSTOMERS who want to express their love for Properties by creating fan works.
-This letter's claim that SOPA would "allow the Attorney General to bring additional judicial remedies against websites dedicated to intellectual property right infringement" doesn't seem to be true. It seems like it will be used (or FORCE BUSINESSES to be used) to shut down sites dedicated to user content. The language of the bill is so broad it could shut down youtube because there are too many cover songs on it.
-Intellectual copyright law is used in a one sided manner. Companies that are built around media tend to misinform the public about what rights they have. An example is blurred out t-shirt logos on documentaries. That is fair use there is no reason to do it but film makers are so afraid of being sued it doesn't matter that they are actually PROTECTED by intellectual rights laws.
SOPA is frightening if you consider the way it is likely to be administered. Through search engines. How many people are going to face prosecution or have their business shut down because someone saw their image posted on a website without taking the time to see the context? If I'm writing a review of a book I am legally allowed to use the cover image because I am using it to create a new work.
There was a case famous in the comic community where a PARODY of the Starbucks logo was featured in a comic book that included the words "Corporate Whore". Starbucks sued and now the creator of the comic book is not allowed to make ANY LOGO THAT CONTAINS BOTH A CIRCLE AND A TRIANGLE.
That is not justice. That is abuse of power and it goes one every day. I can not go into a Kinkos and make copies of an image from a book even though by law I can make up to six copies. 100 if it's for teaching material.
-Lastly, from my understanding, SOPA is another attack on Habeus Corpus. The language I have seen implies that the Attorney General and Homeland Security have all these new powers without the requiring a trial first. The government can shut down someone's source of income without due process.
This will kill smaller media companies who don't have as much influence and will fall prey to the bigger companies who can afford a team of lawyers that specialize in using the government as a weapon as a way to kill their competition in the crib. Before they become real competition.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
NYPD legitimatizes OWS
When I was a boy my father would tell me never let another person to get you upset. When you let them do that to you, you are giving your power to them. In that moment they win. It was the first thing I thought of when I watched this:
Occupy Wall Street Evicted in Late Night Raid; Lawyers Secure Injunction to Reopen Zuccotti Park
Checkmate. From day one of Occupy Wall Street there has been a question as to whether the group stands for anything or will be considered legitimate. The NYPD just answered that question.
If these protests didn't matter the NYPD wouldn't have been ordered to evict them in the middle of the night and there wouldn't have been a media black out. By doing this they have legitimized the movement.
I've lived in the city (well Chicago) and I've been involved with protests (like this one) and they really aren't much more than an annoyance. It's like an influx of pigeons or perhaps more accurately homeless. I've scene a Dave Mathews concert shut down the city much more effectively than any protests.
If there was no threat to the statuesque, politicians would be talking about how this strengthens our democracy, and then sending police protection down there to occupy the occupation (while busting hippies for possession, urinating in public, and whatever other incidental thing they can get away with). Politicians get re-elected.
But the NYPD attack on the freedom to assemble prove that the order came from a position of fear. If they really wanted to clear people out put up a 30 day notice on all tents. evict them legally. Sending in the storm troopers only proves that someone in authority sees them as a threat. It's especially stupid when you consider that OWS became a world wide phenomenon the last time NYPD overstepped.
Thank you NYPD.
Occupy Wall Street Evicted in Late Night Raid; Lawyers Secure Injunction to Reopen Zuccotti Park
Checkmate. From day one of Occupy Wall Street there has been a question as to whether the group stands for anything or will be considered legitimate. The NYPD just answered that question.
If these protests didn't matter the NYPD wouldn't have been ordered to evict them in the middle of the night and there wouldn't have been a media black out. By doing this they have legitimized the movement.
I've lived in the city (well Chicago) and I've been involved with protests (like this one) and they really aren't much more than an annoyance. It's like an influx of pigeons or perhaps more accurately homeless. I've scene a Dave Mathews concert shut down the city much more effectively than any protests.
If there was no threat to the statuesque, politicians would be talking about how this strengthens our democracy, and then sending police protection down there to occupy the occupation (while busting hippies for possession, urinating in public, and whatever other incidental thing they can get away with). Politicians get re-elected.
But the NYPD attack on the freedom to assemble prove that the order came from a position of fear. If they really wanted to clear people out put up a 30 day notice on all tents. evict them legally. Sending in the storm troopers only proves that someone in authority sees them as a threat. It's especially stupid when you consider that OWS became a world wide phenomenon the last time NYPD overstepped.
Thank you NYPD.
Monday, November 7, 2011
The results are in
To generate some new ideas I asked Facebook "If someone knocks on your saying they are running for office what's the first question you'd ask them?"
Here are my responses to the questions i didn't feel like I've really addressed before
Who's handling your compliance?
Currently I am handling everything myself. Which means I am doing a lot of things that don't play to my strengths.
Why are you running for office?
I'm not seeing things get significantly better and I think it is because we've been hearing the same old ideas shout over any new ideas. I have lots of new ideas and so I see it as civic responsibility to run.
What office are you running for?
I have to see how I'm redistricted but for the purposes of this survey I am running for state legislature (aka MO House) but officially I am still running for US Congress.
How are you planning on fixing the problems?
My overall philosophy is to break up the concentration of power. I'm all for people getting rich but that should not give them significantly more power than other individuals.
Where do you stand on legalizing marijuana ?
I have a several tiered plan for legalizing marijuana in Missouri. The basic theory is that the 10th amendment of the US Constitution prevents the federal government from interfering with anything that isn't affected by interstate commerce. If we register the DNA of plants grown in Missouri and make sure those plants can not cross state lines the DEA should have no jurisdiction.
I plan on getting this passed by appealing to conservatives with this legislation on the states rights angle.
How can you help end the recession?
Legalizing marijuana within Missouri would certainly help. But I am also working on ways to make Missouri more friendly to small business. For example I want to find out if regulators are stricter on small business than large manufacturers. If this is the case I would introduce laws that would reprioritize regulation.
who's backing your campaign?
No one.
Please don't hand me a bible.
I'm an Atheist. And I think most books that are pro-atheist are written by smug assholes so I won't hand you any of those either.
What's the first thing that comes to mind when you hear "Niezsche"?
Coming to America when Eddie Murphy's character quotes him.
What do you plan to do to make the planet more liveable in the future?
One of my national policies that will translate well to the state level is that I want to set the rates for how much the power company has to pay someone for adding power to the grid. This will encourage people to put up solar panels and create wind turbines on their property.
I'm also working on new disclosures for home buyers that would give buyers more information about the energy usage of the home.
Sorry I don't vote, good luck.
I would rather have your vote than the luck. Keep in mind that just because you choose to ignore politics doesn't stop them from affecting you. Part of the reason I am running is to give people who hate politicians a voice.
What will you do to help alleviate poverty?
I will protect the services already in place from the boogieman of welfare fraud. While I'm sure there are some people exploiting the system I don't think that threat is worth dismantling the system or increasing the cost of the system to keep a few people from getting the better of it.
In addition to the above job creating ideas I am working on creating other small business incentives for Missouri. Many small businesses in Missouri do not have physical storefronts, so I am looking into ways to help them thrive. I'm also looking at ways to make farm labor more appealing as a job because I simply do not accept that people are too lazy to take these jobs when almost 150,000 homes were foreclosed in Missouri because of the housing bubble and around 1 of 10 Americans are unemployed.
What are your ideas for fixing our toxic political system?
It has gotten so toxic for strategic reasons. All I can do is to find consensus amongst voters and highlight to them when other elected officials go against that for political gain.
Do you Support the Penguins?
No. I am not a fan of any sports. It is my dream that one day debate/public discourse will become our national pastime.
Here are my responses to the questions i didn't feel like I've really addressed before
Who's handling your compliance?
Currently I am handling everything myself. Which means I am doing a lot of things that don't play to my strengths.
Why are you running for office?
I'm not seeing things get significantly better and I think it is because we've been hearing the same old ideas shout over any new ideas. I have lots of new ideas and so I see it as civic responsibility to run.
What office are you running for?
I have to see how I'm redistricted but for the purposes of this survey I am running for state legislature (aka MO House) but officially I am still running for US Congress.
How are you planning on fixing the problems?
My overall philosophy is to break up the concentration of power. I'm all for people getting rich but that should not give them significantly more power than other individuals.
Where do you stand on legalizing marijuana ?
I have a several tiered plan for legalizing marijuana in Missouri. The basic theory is that the 10th amendment of the US Constitution prevents the federal government from interfering with anything that isn't affected by interstate commerce. If we register the DNA of plants grown in Missouri and make sure those plants can not cross state lines the DEA should have no jurisdiction.
I plan on getting this passed by appealing to conservatives with this legislation on the states rights angle.
How can you help end the recession?
Legalizing marijuana within Missouri would certainly help. But I am also working on ways to make Missouri more friendly to small business. For example I want to find out if regulators are stricter on small business than large manufacturers. If this is the case I would introduce laws that would reprioritize regulation.
who's backing your campaign?
No one.
Please don't hand me a bible.
I'm an Atheist. And I think most books that are pro-atheist are written by smug assholes so I won't hand you any of those either.
What's the first thing that comes to mind when you hear "Niezsche"?
Coming to America when Eddie Murphy's character quotes him.
What do you plan to do to make the planet more liveable in the future?
One of my national policies that will translate well to the state level is that I want to set the rates for how much the power company has to pay someone for adding power to the grid. This will encourage people to put up solar panels and create wind turbines on their property.
I'm also working on new disclosures for home buyers that would give buyers more information about the energy usage of the home.
Sorry I don't vote, good luck.
I would rather have your vote than the luck. Keep in mind that just because you choose to ignore politics doesn't stop them from affecting you. Part of the reason I am running is to give people who hate politicians a voice.
What will you do to help alleviate poverty?
I will protect the services already in place from the boogieman of welfare fraud. While I'm sure there are some people exploiting the system I don't think that threat is worth dismantling the system or increasing the cost of the system to keep a few people from getting the better of it.
In addition to the above job creating ideas I am working on creating other small business incentives for Missouri. Many small businesses in Missouri do not have physical storefronts, so I am looking into ways to help them thrive. I'm also looking at ways to make farm labor more appealing as a job because I simply do not accept that people are too lazy to take these jobs when almost 150,000 homes were foreclosed in Missouri because of the housing bubble and around 1 of 10 Americans are unemployed.
What are your ideas for fixing our toxic political system?
It has gotten so toxic for strategic reasons. All I can do is to find consensus amongst voters and highlight to them when other elected officials go against that for political gain.
Do you Support the Penguins?
No. I am not a fan of any sports. It is my dream that one day debate/public discourse will become our national pastime.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Vision
I've finished the "Vision" section of my political site. It took me a while because I had an idea of what was going to be in it and how it would look but those two ideas weren't playing well together. So instead of having something really specific I have a gist of my philosophy on how to make this country great.
My sentimental over flashy way of defining greatness.
A bit of trivia on this comic. The icon for the section is a take on Ronald Reagan's description of America as a "shining city on a hill". I like that imagery but I am more inclined to follow Ron Paul's interputation of that statement- to lead the world by example not through force.
Though the Doctor and I would have some different ideas on what kind of example to lead.
http://www.nilvsdcbs.com/vision.html
My sentimental over flashy way of defining greatness.
A bit of trivia on this comic. The icon for the section is a take on Ronald Reagan's description of America as a "shining city on a hill". I like that imagery but I am more inclined to follow Ron Paul's interputation of that statement- to lead the world by example not through force.
Though the Doctor and I would have some different ideas on what kind of example to lead.
http://www.nilvsdcbs.com/vision.html
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Puppet In Chief
I heard that Bush's approval ratings are up so I thought I'd dust off my old comic strip Puppet In Chief. A series of comics about Dubya being interviewed (and playing the part of Neo from The Matrix) check them out at http://www.nilgravity.com/puppetinchief.htm and there's more at Chicago6corners
Monday, October 10, 2011
moral relativism
Everybody hopes that life is like a dancer's pirouetteWith grace we've dodged each conflict and decision that we've metEverybody tells themselves that they must be justifiedThey do what they do because they're trying to get by-Murder By Death, The Devil Drivers
I don't believe in good or evil or moral relativism. I spent at least a half hour talking to Christians trying to convert me and when I said I didn't believe in good or evil they said ahh moral relativism and I said "ahh not really"
I believe that people do things for various reasons with various consequences and all we can do is be aware of our impact on others and be aware of it.
I had to look up Moral Relativism to see if it meant what I thought it meant. It turns out that I primarily look at things as a subcategory of Moral Relativism called Descriptive Relativism. Basically I don't judge things initially I understand them.
When a tiger attacks it's trainer, it isn't because it's evil, it's because it is a tiger. When a corporation fleeces it's customers, it isn't evil, it's a corporation. When John Edwards and Newt Gingrich cheated on their sick wives, it isn't because they are evil, it's because they are men.
I hope the tiger one is pretty self explanatory. Tigers and other animals do not have less powerful versions of our brains. Each species has it's own operating system. And when an animal attacks it is because the human didn't understand the animal's "programming".
Corporations are legal constructs that are designed to make a profit. And as I've said before the executives have a legal obligation to make a profit. You can not blame a corporation for shady practices when their employees are obligated to be cut throat.
John Edwards and Newt Gingrich can't be blamed for wanting some non-chemo nookie. Men are made to have certain needs, that are different than the needs of women. A man's "programming" puts greater emphasis on the physical aspect of love where a woman's "programming" puts greater emphasis on the emotional. Men and women tend to become unfaithful for very different reasons.
But saying they can't be blamed for WANTING these things mean that the rest of us shouldn't hold them accountable.
We don't let tigers roam the streets because we know it will lead to attacks. We have Animal Control to keep dangerous animals from interfering with human beings. And yeah, it sucks that means that if my friendly huskies tunnel out of my yard, I pay the price. But I understand why animal ownership is REGULATED in this way.
We REGULATE corporations to make sure that the natural controls of a free market (competition, supply and demand) can not be circumvented. It's understandable for businesses to want to be deregulated, the same way the huskies don't like that I ran fencing on the ground in their favorite digging area. The point of regulation is not to inhibit business, but to keep business from inhibiting the freedom of their competition and the consumer.
As for the cheaters, the didn't do anything wrong by cheating on their wives. The did something wrong by breaking their agreement with their wives. If the wives of these men forgive them then that should be the end of it. The only business it is of society is if the wife doesn't forgive him. Then as a society it is in our best interest that she takes him to the cleaners for violating their contract (wedding vows).
My way of seeing the world isn't a way to make some 'evil' or 'wrong' things alright. It's about making an honest assessment of the situation and deciding what actually matters and what we should let slide. It also opens ourselves up to solutions to problems. For example:
Ron Paul was booed for saying that Bin Laden's justification of 9/11 was our foreign policy. He wasn't saying that Bin Laden was justified or that we shouldn't have killed him (Ron Paul actually supported going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden back in 2001). Ron Paul was explaining if we do not want to inspire future Bin Laden's we should change our foreign policy.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Staying on Message
Standing here like a comedian,I repeat what I say, again
and again and again
until the meaning has become an imitation of itself,
An impression of an original defeats the fucking purpose
but it's looking more and more like the same place that we started.
-Against Me, Holy Shit!
I've been thinking a lot about "The Message". Which includes a lot of things like: Why does the media make having a varying agenda sound like a good thing when it's the Tea Party, but uses it to dismiss Occupy Wall Street?
In the age of the internet and the 24 hour news cycle it's important to control the message. But there are some inherent dangers of doing that.
When you keep repeating the same line over and over again it does make you seem more consistent but it also makes you more reflexive than thoughtful. When you have a shtick you start to steer questions to your talking point instead of answering them.
This leaves no room for nuance. And lack of nuance leads to lack of compromise . And we're seeing where that gets us because almost everyone in office sticks to script instead of being thoughtful and listening to people.
I am sort of on the opposite side of the spectrum. I'm fueled by creativity. And it creates a problem because if I've said something enough to people in private, I forget to include it when posting online.
I'm hoping with my campaign to move myself towards speaking with a clear consistent message while bringing other polititians closer to being thoughtless talking points droids.
In the age of the internet and the 24 hour news cycle it's important to control the message. But there are some inherent dangers of doing that.
When you keep repeating the same line over and over again it does make you seem more consistent but it also makes you more reflexive than thoughtful. When you have a shtick you start to steer questions to your talking point instead of answering them.
This leaves no room for nuance. And lack of nuance leads to lack of compromise . And we're seeing where that gets us because almost everyone in office sticks to script instead of being thoughtful and listening to people.
I am sort of on the opposite side of the spectrum. I'm fueled by creativity. And it creates a problem because if I've said something enough to people in private, I forget to include it when posting online.
I'm hoping with my campaign to move myself towards speaking with a clear consistent message while bringing other polititians closer to being thoughtless talking points droids.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Smarter government (cheaper more covered part 2)
I've been to hell. I spell it, I spell it DMV
Anyone that's been there knows precisely what I meanStood there and I've waited and choked back the urge to scream
-Primus, DMV (Pork Soda)
When I was living in the greater Chicago-land area I dreaded going to the Illinois DMV ( though it's actually called Secretary of State's Office Vehicle something or other). But as it happened it was rather pleasant. My Republican voting uncle asked me the next day at work "wasn't it wonderful?"
Of course it wasn't wonderful. But it was painless. I wasn't frustrated. That's the most you can expect out of such a scenario. Mediacom could learn a thing or two from the state of Illinois. The difference between smarter government and what we usually get is the difference between a forgetable experience and one so hellish it must be expressed in song.
Now again, let me set up the parameters. This is not a libertarian discussion if the government should do things even if they can do it right. This is a discussion about how the government can do things better. Let's look at recent news.
Solyndra
If you don't follow the news what happened is that Obama made a loan to a solar panel company that went out of business even with the extra half a billion dollars. Is the lesson that the government shouldn't give loans no bank would give? perhaps. But let's not let the conversation die there. Next time the government wants to meddle in the private sector, they should patron it not be it's patriarch.
The Obama administration making the same mistake with green jobs as Republicans are making with the economy as a whole. They are assuming that the problem is a lack of liquidity when the real problem is a lack of demand.
If the Obama administration is really serious about helping these companies- buy their products. Order half a billion dollars worth of solar panels for government buildings. If the company still goes out of business after that at least you were able to cut down the overhead of running several government agencies.
The same could have been done on the auto bailout (though that ended up working out okay). We could have put in an order for X amount of electric cars or hybrid hummers for the military.
Now again, let me set up the parameters. This is not a libertarian discussion if the government should do things even if they can do it right. This is a discussion about how the government can do things better. Let's look at recent news.
Solyndra
If you don't follow the news what happened is that Obama made a loan to a solar panel company that went out of business even with the extra half a billion dollars. Is the lesson that the government shouldn't give loans no bank would give? perhaps. But let's not let the conversation die there. Next time the government wants to meddle in the private sector, they should patron it not be it's patriarch.
The Obama administration making the same mistake with green jobs as Republicans are making with the economy as a whole. They are assuming that the problem is a lack of liquidity when the real problem is a lack of demand.
If the Obama administration is really serious about helping these companies- buy their products. Order half a billion dollars worth of solar panels for government buildings. If the company still goes out of business after that at least you were able to cut down the overhead of running several government agencies.
The same could have been done on the auto bailout (though that ended up working out okay). We could have put in an order for X amount of electric cars or hybrid hummers for the military.
Post Office
Bad mouthing the Post Office has been a pet peeve of mine since 2008 when it seemed trendy for Republican Presidential candidates. It seems to me that the Post Office is an example of the government working, not an example of the opposite. I don't remember ever getting a letter lost (though there might have been one in my midtwenties or I might have found it behind my dresser when I moved). It's the cheapest way to send a small amount of paper. It goes much above and beyond what it's privately owned competition would do.
What is really the icing on my hatred of Post Office bashing on the part of Republicans is that they are only in office because of the Post Office. The life blood of the Republican party has been to use mass mailings to get out the older vote. So even though they say in public they would choose UPS, they go with the government owned model.
This ruckus over the Post Office seems to be manufactured. From my understanding the cash flow problems are primarily caused by a requirement that the Post Office have it's pension paid up for 75 years. That seems excessive. The fear is that the government will have to bailout the USPS in 75 years. Really? We're in a recession now and the Republican plan is to put Postal workers out of work now so don't have to worry about their pensions in the future.
I guess that's encouraging that the Republicans are so sure that we'll still be a country in 75 years because they don't seem to think that way when talking about any other issue.
Friday, July 29, 2011
letter to the editor
I am running for Congress in Missouri's 7th district as a Democrat. I am hearing a lot of snide remarks about the current occupant of that seat about his lack of professionalism, appearance, intelligence, tact, morality, and his profession doesn't seem to lend him any actual expertise.
I don't approve of any of these criticisms. Part of the reason is because many (if not all) of these kind of things can be said about me. But I also don't think it serves any kind of purpose. Judging an elected official on petty things only appeals to those that already don't like that person.
Instead I would encourage people to ask of my/their representative: Are you worth the $150,000 salary and the additional $200,000 to run your office? What are you actually doing to earn that money?
Obviously I think I know what answer they'll get or I wouldn't be running when he is presumed to seek re-election (he's been dodgy on what he thinks is too long i office). My representative isn't big on introducing legislation or town halls. He does encourage people to schedule appointments with him. But it's a little hard to take seriously when those meetings are all off the record.
Nicholas Ivan Ladendorf
http://www.electladendorf.us
I don't approve of any of these criticisms. Part of the reason is because many (if not all) of these kind of things can be said about me. But I also don't think it serves any kind of purpose. Judging an elected official on petty things only appeals to those that already don't like that person.
Instead I would encourage people to ask of my/their representative: Are you worth the $150,000 salary and the additional $200,000 to run your office? What are you actually doing to earn that money?
Obviously I think I know what answer they'll get or I wouldn't be running when he is presumed to seek re-election (he's been dodgy on what he thinks is too long i office). My representative isn't big on introducing legislation or town halls. He does encourage people to schedule appointments with him. But it's a little hard to take seriously when those meetings are all off the record.
Nicholas Ivan Ladendorf
http://www.electladendorf.us
Friday, June 24, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)