[News] Liability in Press Laws

So I promised to type this up some time ago, but here are the basics. Several of my friends and I were all sitting around talking about politics. I think it goes without saying that there was a very wide spectrum of political beliefs present, but we, like the populace at large, held a general disgust with the media and its current environment. I think this discussion was timely, because of what has been going on in England recently with FOX news hacking into the phones of several prominent people. The government is holding hearings over a wide range of press abuses from the phone hacking to the paparazzi. Here in the US, there are numerous instances of extremely grievous abuses by Big Media (that includes Fox and all network and cable news) but even newspapers and magazines.

So the challenge lies in the fact, that the first sign of true oppression in a society is when the government moves to shut up or shut down the press. When you have a vibrant or democratic society, they need to find sneakier ways to do it like the “Protect IP” laws recently attempted to pass in Britain, Australia and here in the United States. You can still have an unspoken agreement among the major players that certain stories shall be spun a certain way (cough cough like Occupy Wall Street) but the truth is, I honestly believe in most cases this is simple idiocy, laziness and group think rather than some grand conspiracy.

They’re too incompetent and irresponsible to be in much of a conspiracy.

But how do you hold them responsible? Simply passing a law making certain kinds of behavior illegal is often ineffective, because they will either find clever ways to skirt the rules, or, if the enforcement is effective, then a government will use those enforcement tools to protect itself from embarrassing political stories. The “Official Secrets Act” in the UK, makes the abuses by the DHS in the US look like small potatoes.

So a friend of mine simply suggested the idea that you allow people to request that any footage or notes a media outlet took of them be made public in its entirety, and if they didn’t then they could be sued for damages of libel in a court of law. This is an excellent idea for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that it acknowledges that footage taken of an individual should guarantee THEM certain rights, not just the media. It also is an easily objective test. If you film me, I want the entire tape made public. If you won’t do that, you get sued.

That will discourage blatant manipulation which doesn’t carry the original intent of the individual.

Personally, I think we need more than that, but the fact that everyone present could agree on this reform seems like a very good place to start.

[Repost] GAO Audits Fed

(Via Bill Maxwell)

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=BFA0CBEC-CCE1-4520-8899-122C8B719105

Topic List

This is mainly for administrative purposes, which I will be including in future posts at the bottom to help me remember, but the list of topics I want to do has grown so large I don't want to keep putting it off.

Neofederalism: Restrengthening the 10th amendment as an argument FOR liberalism
Neofederalism: the Oasis effect and who should rule?
Electing the Attorney General
Uniting Left and Right: Bitcoin
Why exactly does our DHS infrastructure need to be so secret? Who does that really serve?
The price of apathy
Corporations aren't actually evil vampires. They're just vampires. Its the Renfields that are the problem
How to exploit the apathetic
How to exploit the willing enablers of the Renfields
To Big to Fail: Entropy in Human Institutions past a certain size
The economy of scale vs the smaller element
The WTO: How it should be reformed or abolished
The UN: Dissolve the Security Council or Dissolve the UN

Repost from Daily Kos

They are becoming more sophisticated

Occupy wall street is becoming more sophisticated. The attempts to censor and oppress them are becoming more obvious. If the Tea Party REALLY cared about BOTH small government and controlling corporations they'd be all over this. If the news REALLY cared about 'the people' they'd cover #OccupyWallStreet in the hundreds to thousands when they covered Tea Party Rallies in the fifties.

The left is already aware that corporations own America. Some independents care. And as the Republicans have shown....if a sufficiently sized majority or even minority is willing to stand up and say, "NO!" then they cannot be stopped in this country. The wheels that make governance impossible without the will of a supra majority works both ways.

The false church of centrism combined with the fact that the rising generation is aware that their elders have been bought and paid for by Clinton Democrats and Corporate Democrats cannot hold the rank in file in check forever.

And all the pretty speeches followed by capitulative action by Obama cannot change that.

[Cons]The Founding Fathers

So the question is, how much should we take them as allegory and how much should we take them as historical persons?

I know that seems like it should be obvious, but it isn't.

You see as historical persons, they were flawed but brilliant men who lived in the context of their particular time frame. Conversely, as allegorical figures they are the architects that created the constitution that serves as the symbol of the social construct of our times. Having a written constitution provides stability to our system of governance, but we as a society decide how much of the written version we're going to accept vs how much of a 'living' document it might be.

Literalists interpret the constitution by the intent of the founding fathers and by the strict wording as it was meant a the time. But the problem is, that by restricting it to this, you can argue that you delegitimize it. Every flaw in a founding father (such as slave ownership) becomes another potential for angle of attack not just on a good but flawed man, but on the document that they helped create.

To white anglo saxon male, it is unfortunate that slavery happened, and it was eventually rectified with amendments to the constitution and (in the view of most) the civil rights acts passed in the 1960's. To someone of a different skin color, female or such, its not that simple. An amendment doesn't change the fact that the national story is SOMEONE ELSE's story. If the founding fathers are allegorical, then the document is living but if it is literal, then so too are the details of their stories. It is very hard to play down one without playing down the other.

I argue that the allegorical interpretation has its strengths. But then again, I'm in favor of having a constitutional convention every 50 years or so as a way of reconnecting people with the constitution. I understand why people are afraid of this, especially given our political difficulties now, but sometimes it is the hard choices that end up being the best ones.

[Science] The Tobacco Test

OK, for those of you out there who deny AGW, who are agnostic about AGW, or who have friends who are AGW deniers, yet who 'love' science, here's a challenge.

Name for me an issue in which you had a vested corporate interest on one side promoting one view point and the majority of the scientific community on the other, in which the majority of the scientific community proved to be wrong?

AGW deniers that 'love' science can find plenty of examples of mainstream science getting it wrong, because getting it wrong is part of science.

But can you find where corporations are on one side, and science on the other, in which science got it wrong?

I know I can find plenty where science was right. Specifically, I'm thinking of Tobacco.

But let's go farther:

Can you find such an example in the western world? In the last 50 years?

I'm willing to bet you can't.

Update: Bonus points if you can find one where Mainstream science has had the opinion for 40 or so+ years.

Qualifier: To be 'wrong' mainstream science has to actually change its opinion, like it did with Ether.

6 Killer Apps

Civilziation: "It means a society based upon the opinion of civilians. It means that violence, the rule of warriors and despotic chiefs, the conditions of camps and warfare, of riot and tryranny, give place to parliaments where laws are made, and independent courts of justice in which over long periods those laws are maintained. That is Civilization- and in its soil grow continually freedom, comfort and culture. Whien Civilization reigns in any country, a wider and less harassed life is afforded to the masses of the people." - Winston Churchill 1938



What happens then to society where civilians no longer rule, but vampires, soulless blood sucking entities that cannot die, that have no morality but exist only for their own prof-ligation and profit, and that have by process of parasitic invasion co-opted the wealth of the masses into vast zombie wealth funds that only they control, thus enthralling the population into considering the welfare of Wall Street tantamount to their own? More over, what then will happen to a society when its greatest warriors, and those most resistant to change or the usurpation of our traditions have instead been beguiled into thinking that up is down and black is white and that the market is 'free' and that the very levers of society by which one can cage and control such monsters, IE government, is inherently evil unto itself?

It falls.

That's what happens. The question is, what rises in its place? And given the preponderance of modern technology it won't be pretty. Given the inevitable advances to come in genetics, cybernetics, pharmaceuticals, memetics, and robotics, and it is frightening beyond imagining. One can hope that our society's warriors will shake off their enslavement before it is too late, but I'm not holding my breath. A few have, but not enough.

Note: It may seem by praising conservatives I'm some how bashing Liberals. I'm not. Liberals are our explorers and wondermakers are those who push the boundaries that keep our society from becoming static ossified pieces of crap. Conservatives usually are on the wrong side of history, especially in regards to social change, but it was liberals that did propose the idea of Eugenics at the turn of the century. SOMETIMES resistance to change is a good thing. SOMETIMES that person who stands up and says, "Wait a minute maybe we should think about this..." is a good thing.

The person who tells you 'no' is worth their weight in gold.

But not when they're no longer even grounded in reality.

[Rant] Troy Davis

I can think of no clearer litmus test for your humanity than how you feel about this case.

The family of the officer that was slain wants, "Justice" to be done. The Death Penalty is not a deterrent. There are numerous studies showing this. But I'll be honest, if someone killed a member of my family, I'd probably want them to die.

But only if I was sure it was them.

A case with no physical evidence and especially one in which seven of the nine witnesses said that they were coocerced is not one that generates certainty. You do not put someone to death because you THINK it might be them. You do not put someone to death because you have a hunch it might be them. You only do so when there is absolutely no doubt and the crime in question is absolutely monstrous.

Quite frankly, when George W. Bush and his cronies are walking around free, then I don't think this nation has the moral justification to put anyone to death, much less someone who has had so many people recant their testimony.

The fact that multiple judges have still found him sufficiently guilty not to lift the stay doesn't mean much. This is the same justice system that allowed Citizens United to pass. This is the same justice system that has failed to prosecute the guilty and has harassed and destroyed the lives of the innocent.

I believe that there is something unknowable out there, something powerful. I don't claim to know what it is, despite many attempts to figure it out, but I do believe that there is something larger than ourselves in the spiritual realm, and if it has the slightest sense of true justice, the death of this man will curse and condemn this country like nothing we have done since Abu Gharib.

I know I stand as witness.

[Rant] Why I think your best option to change the country is to cover yourself in slime and vote for Huntsman in the GOP primary.

I have made no particular secret about my loathing of the current GOP. It is controlled by Tea Party fanatics who care more about their ideology than their country or their fellow man.

But Obama is a spineless coward who lets the Tea Party walk all over him.

So let's follow my logic: You can agree or disagree but its pretty simple really.

1) Are you an Obama Supporter?

a) If yes, skip to step 6.
b) If no, go to step 2.

2) Are you a Frothing Tea Party/AGW Denier?
a. If yes, Go to hell.
b. If no, go to step 3.

3) Are you a Republican?
a. If yes, Huntsman is the ONLY Republican who has not publicly denied the biggest threat facing our planet. He is a fiscal conservative with executive experience, and if you feel like your party has been stolen by crazy people, you have no better way of showing it than by choosing the most moderate candidate available.

Furthermore, all of the other candidates are theocrats OR Ron Paul. Note, if you are a theocrat, go to Step 2a. If you are a Ron Paul supporter, then I feel sorry for you. Ron Paul used to have principals until fairly recently where he began talking like a theocrat and abandoned his duty as a congressman.

Ron Paul Disgraces the Office of Congressman and insults the Presidency

I'm sure Ron Paul supporters won't care, but I don't care if you care any more. I have lost all respect for Ron Paul.

ALL respect.

4) Are you an independent?
a) If yes, go to step 5.
b) If no to go step 6.

5) Do you support a third party?
a) If you do, then you can still vote in the Republican primary and for your third party candidate in the general election. Look, the biggest message you can send to the Republicans right now that you don't like the way their party is acting is to pick the candidate LEAST like the rest of the party. If you vote in your third party election, they honestly aren't going to care. And you're still going to be able to vote for them in the general election.
b) If you don't, and just vote for the two parties, then the odds are you're disgusted with the two main parties. You can't influence the Democrats. No democrat has enough guts to step up to the plate to challenge Obama. Just "Throwing the Bums Out" doesn't do anything by itself. Look at Rick Perry. He's the leading Republican Candidate right now and he's everything bad about George W. Bush with none of the good! (And yes, even though I consider the man a war criminal, George W. Bush DID have some good qualities, especially compared to Rick Perry.)

6) If you are a democrat, are you happy with the way the REPUBLICANS are acting?

a) If you are, then you're either not a democrat (see step 2a) or you're gleeful because you think they're destroying themselves as a party maybe? If you are truly that cynical, then vote in the Republican Primary for some minor stupid candidate like Rick Santorum. Of course if he then actually wins, well then the jokes on you isn't it? But the Republicans are going to elect SOMEONE, and you might as well choose the lesser evil of the Republicans which happens to be Huntsman.

b) IF you are NOT happy with the way the Republicans have been acting, but want a sane opposition party, nothing will slap them in the face than getting in their nasty election and voting for Huntsman. They've been jamming the gears of the country for the last 25 years, the LEAST we can do is return the favor and jam up theirs.

Rumors of my Demise Have Been Greatly

Exaggerated." - Mark Twain



After consideration, I've decided I will do the Dialogs, but, I will do them only after writing and then reviewing them, which will a) Make them somewhat more enjoyable for you and b) Help ensure that I'm meaning what I say and c) Allow me to focus on other things more.



I have decided that I still to somewhat of a degree consider this a waste of time in the sense that I think the odds of these two philosophies being reconciled are essentially nil, however if it could somehow work it would be delightful and I think I will, as an individual, learn a bit from the process.



So I'll be doing one of these every two weeks or so, but in the meantime, the set up.



Imagine a world, 30 years in the future, which has largely moved on except in the United States of America. Due to political grid lock and cultural nostalgia, the United States is in many ways recognizable as it is today.



A few exceptions:



For most people, the question of Global Warming is no longer an 'if' but a 'happening.' However, strangely, it hasn't really changed anyone's opinions on anything. Indeed, for many conservatives, the question has become whether or not to believe scientists who are predicting the rise of spontaneous artificial intelligence in the computers that run our daily lives, under the belief that God would never allow something like that to happen because only He can make a true mind or soul.



And there are cat people. Gay Marriage isn't an issue any more. George Takai's birthday is the equivalent of Martin Luther King Day. It is widely agreed that this is not because there are greater heroes of the GLBT movement but because George Takai's birthday is a lot more fun to have drinks and beers on, and dress up in outlandish star trek costumes. While no one says, "Kiss me I'm Gay" they do say, "Kiss me, I'm Takai."



However, this controversy has been replaced by a controversy over Bestiality, not the kind you might think but the voluntary injection of huge amounts of animal DNA into their genomes, so Furry's and several others have taken their desires to the next logical step and become partially animals. Certain of the same groups that currently have issue with Gay Marriage have instead taken issue with Bestiality, arguing that such people are no longer human, especially when their genetic populations started to breed true. This movement is largely regarded as Cat People Rights.



However, the most controversial element of the future is perhaps that of Augmented Reality, where people are able to shape reality to their whim, either a fantasy or sci version etc. Skilled AI programs and graphics allow this reality to even extend to the work place, and while there are mandatory neutral areas, it has begun to result in an extreme segmentation of society.



This worked out fine until the sleeper Z party, that believed in making Zombies a reality, managed to get elected to a majority of congress, 60 sets in the Senate and 5 out 9 members of the Supreme Court. Their first action was to impeach the President and the Vice President and install their Speaker as Speaker of the House. Majority Leader Reed and Acting Speaker Boner were at a loss as what to do.



Ex-President Snooki was rather put out as well.



And so the States have called together a constitutional convention to fix things. And in the process opened all kinds of ideas that had been sitting around for a while. For months, the two realities, liberals and conservatives have gone back and forth without making any progress whilst the nation festers.



In the meantime, our first scene will be two good friends, young interns, one from the Libertarian delegation, Wardicus, and one from the Liberal delegation, Grayicus, who shall have an initial dialog set up and nudged by their benevolent cafeteria worker, Samicus.



I'm sure you all wait in eager anticipation ;)

[News] American Parliament

Repost from Andrew Sullivan.



An American Parliament?



The United States Senate is the most disfunctional legislative body in a so called 'free' democracy in the entire world. People complain about the two party system yet in Parliaments all over the world, smaller parties are represented and help form moderating coalitions that often force the crazy people to chill.

A pause for reflection

While I have a blind side on emotionally creating an 'us vs them' mechanic some times, quite frankly on many issues I'm quite convinced I'm firmly correct.



So what? You might say. So is everyone else.



Well, there is 'correct' and then there is 'Correct!'



Everyone agrees that things are broken in Washington and my Road Map (I think) does a pretty good job of showing why. To govern, you basically need a coalition of enough people to form a majority, and the dominant factions, the Glen/Rush Republicans and the Clinton Democrats are respectively taking advantage of the other factions in their party and Road Kill to get their majority.



I was trying to think outside of the box. I think it will be harder for Reagan/Roosevelt Republicans to take over their party again than for an outside coalition to win. I think that the LBJ democrats are too busy with their individual agendas to rise above them and are thus easily divided and exploited. I think the Roosevelt Democrats are too loyal to the party to break from it. The only movable pieces I saw on the board were Nolan Libertarians and Kucinich Democrats.



To form a governing coalition, the group must have a drive to win, be willing to form coalitions, and be able to convey platforms that will persuade others. I used to have hope for the Green Party but not for the last decade. Likewise Snowflakes, Conans and Archie Bunker Democrats aren't going to lead anything. *A* Conan might, like Ross Perot almost did, but he backed down at the last minute.



But by themselves Nolan Libertarians and Kuccinich Democrats cannot wield sufficient might to shake the status quo, and Ron Paul Libertarians are effectively voting Republican at this point, or Republican and Libertarian and moving more and more into the orbit of the Republican party as the Republican party coopts some of their message, leaving the Nolan Libertarians behind.



Nolan Libertarians and Kuccinich Democrats are extremely hostile towards each other. Nolan Democrats view the Kuccinich democrats as the ultimate statists (which I argue is actually LBJ democrats) whilst Kuccinich Democrats view Nolan Democrats are heartless thugs who are more concerned with destroying the government than with doing good to society.



I had an idea to use a polemic dialog ala the Republic, but in the last two days...I don't know. Because I think if these two sides could somehow forge their differences, they could make this a great country. Would Kuccinich Democrats abandon the idea of government first as a solution to problems? Would Libertarians agree to the idea that they had to PROVE their ideas could work (and do so in a way that could convince others in a modern day objective scientific approach) and accept state intervention in the areas where it does not?



My proposed dialog would look at a future where the idea was potentially more attractive but...in the last two days I'm reading things that make me wonder if this would be too farcical to try. Specifically based on the reactions I've seen from some Kuccinich Democrats to some of the more left leaning Libertarian ideas, I'm not sure if Kuccinich Democrats really can give up the idea that government is the solution even if it means trying to solve the problems that matter most to them, nor am I certain Libertarians are willing to give up the idea that Government *IS* the solution if their ideas are proven not to work.



And if that can't happen, talk of rebooting the constitution to help them get passed this obsession they have with it as a holy document based on their rather odd interpretation of it is pointless.



In short, my entire experiment in this might be for naught. I will watch for a week or two and see if I think there is even the slightest chance of this alliance, because really, if I thought Progressives could break the strangehold of the Clintonites *AND* actually convince roadkill to go in their direction I'd be tempted to go that way.



But I'd still be concerned that they'd take it too far. Road Kill demands moderation, and Kuccinich Democrats don't DO moderation well. Thus I don't think even the most persuasive or successful progressive campaign would be sustainable, which would hand things right back to the Clinton Democrats. Or worse, the Rush/Beck Republicans.



Conversely, even if somehow the Liberatrians gained a large amount of offices in a wave election, I don't picture it being sustainable, because to govern you have to believe that sometimes government IS the solution and for many of them the solution to failed attempts to fix the social problem (for those that even think some things Kucchinich Democrats regard as minimum standards of society are even problems worth addressing to begin with) would be to make government smaller, not larger. This is perfectly reflected in the Ron Paul Republicans within the Tea Party suggesting more tax cuts and smaller government to solve the Unemployment crisis, or being unable to accept 1 dollar in tax increases for 10 in cuts (and this is not hyperbole since Ron Paul himself recently stated this.)



This level of intractibility makes me think that even were I to have the powers granted me of all the great charismatics in history combined I could not reconcile these philosophies by any means at all.



Which leaves me with nothing.



I'll have to think on it.

[Phil] My Blind Side and My Theorum of Evolutionary Politics

So, I think the best way to find out what your blind side is wait for a criticism from someone who you respect, while given as the opposite point of view in a discussion as objectively as you can. Sometimes its flat out wrong. If someone told me, "You put too much faith in science" I'd smile and laugh because I know how messed up science can be but the PROCESS of science has given us amazing reproducible results again and again.

Recently the criticism was leveled at me, "You tend to think in Us vs Them filters." (Paraphrased). My initial reaction was that this was not true, but in retrospect, I agree. It is. But its relative. See, I understand that this is my EMOTIONAL reaction to something. I also know I'm a human being and that I'm influenced by my emotions. I try to override my emotions with reason as much as possible but I know I'm not perfect at it.

This is the value and importance of introspection. If you don't do it, you vastly increase the odds are that you've got not just one blind side, but many (or many related, hard to say and probably varies by individual.) Even worse, some people might think they engage in introspection when they actually engage in reinforcement. Its a tricky game, to be sure, but the results usually play out over time.

But I digress.

So I posit that this comes from another topic that has been bouncing around my mind of late, biology in politics. I think anyone can overcome their political or cultural beliefs with reason and tempered habit, but I think the EMOTIONAL way they react to something is hardwired biologically. I think reason can overcome it, but I think that the more aware you are of it, the more control you have.

I think reason, evolutionarily speaking, is a very recent abnormality, a mutation that is not as strong or ingrained into our natures as our emotions are. We've had millions of years to have our emotions drilled into us through natural selection (a subject on which Darwin was right by the way), but only a few hundred thousand to tens of thousands to have true reason. Or specifically Metacognition. Reason as the philosophers thought of it.

I think in terms of politics, behavior came from two axioms. On the one hand, you had individualists vs collectivists. That is to say, those who went out on their own and those that worked together to survive. The thing is, I think there is an evolutionary bias for the middle. Too solo, and reproducing is hard as is receiving aid when you need it. Too collectivist, pre science, and you risk disease. Major disease, where death is a horrible selector. Now I have no theory for this, but I do think that if the medium of the two is such, then I posit that those who are Biologically conservative fit this axiom.

In other words, we often think of individuals, such as Libertarians, as 'in the middle' with Conservatives on the Right and Liberals on the Left, but I would argue that Conservatives CAN and DO work in groups, but they are an 'us' vs 'them' mentality, vs Libertarians who are mostly, "Me + people who think like me" vs "Everyone the hell else" just short on the spectrum short of anarchists, who are very rare populationally speaking. Thus I think there is an evolutionary advantage to being conservative (at least in a pre science society).

I also think that the second axiom is 'New' vs 'Old.' Those who are willing to try new things ('what's that mushroom taste like?' vs stay with the old, "hell no i'm not eating that mushroom!') I think this is the older biological axiom. And I think that the 'individual' vs 'collectivist' stemmed from it, such that those who said, "Hey lets try this farming thing' won out vs those who said, "hell no, I wants to catch mean!", which snowballed such that a certain level of collectivism became the dominant gene pool but it trended toward 'Conservative'.

Exactly how much of this is there I don't know, but the basic idea behind it is pretty solid for a couple of reasons. The first, is that if you look at the Revolutionary War, you'll see that 1/3rd of the population favored Revolt, 1/3rd were Roadkill, and 1/3rd were loyalists. Now, which of these were biologically conservative? That's probably relative. Honestly, I'd bet there were spreads of all types in all three camps. But the split fascinates me so because it mirrors what we have today.

The thing that makes me most convinced there's some legitimacy to my theory is that we have already discovered some genetic correlation to some behaviors. There is indeed a risk taking gene, for example. And if we know some social disorders don't allow any social development at all that isn't learned by rote, then there is probably a spectrum of socializers vs non socializers.

Now, taking the 'tree hugger' position on this, I'd postulate that a healthy biological environment features a strong diversity of conservatives and liberals in a society. You need people saying, "Let's try this new thing" vs "Hell no I'm not eating that mushroom."

But its more complicated than that. We are also products of our culture. And a culture (or cultural faction) can be conservative or liberal. In my case, I was raised very conservative. And I believe that my anscestors on at least one side of my family have been very conservative as far back as you can go. And culturally speaking that line has been as well.

Over the course of my life I've been betrayed either institutionally or emotionally by most of the philosophies and institutions I was raised with. I have a very low tolerance for betrayal and a very long emotional memory. Where there is no apology or acknowledgement of fault, I don't forgive, though I do let it go in terms of caring about it, sometimes.

But if I am biologically conservative without the associating culture, that definitely explains an 'us vs them' lens point. Instead of the "us" being Republicans vs Democrats, in my case it was "Democrats vs Republicans" until the Democrats failed to have a spine and fight for what they believe and it became, "People who Give a Damn vs People that Don't." And its true. I respect people with ideologies more than I respect people who don't. I respect compassion, and I respect reason, and I respect introspection. I DO view everything through an "us" vs "them" label as I think a significant portion of our population does.

Fortunately, I'm capable of reason, and can see that flaw in my thinking and override it. Many can't.

Update: 9/20/2011 - I've noticed this post is read a lot. So let me clarify....just because I have a natural tendency to put people into an 'us vs them' categorization doesn't mean that I'm always WRONG to do so. Moreover, I'm capable of looking for and finding my blind spot and altering my behavior when its pointed out to me. If I say that you ignore science and are siding with companies that have paid researchers to bamboozle you, and you think you're smarter than them still but don't change your opinion, its you who is messed up, not me.

[News] Just a link

If you want to see an example of Progressive vs LBJ democrats and Clintonite democrats, this is an excellent place to see it. Read the comments here.



The Progressives are pissed at the democrats and Obama in particular.



The Roosevelt democrats are the ones who are pissed, but say things like, "But we need to hold the party together."



The LBJ democrats are the ones who get most offended emotionally and defend Obama with emotional reactions.



The Clinton democrats talk about how bad the Republicans are, and how we need to tell the difference etc etc.



A more classic example supporting some of my theories I could not ask for.

[Phil] On Civility and Science

So I read a rather fascinating post by a friend linking to an article by "Popehat" about a woman who's blog encouraged a return to civility and how she did not see the irony about she was being uncivil by calling the Tea Party terrorists. Now first of all, I find the comments rather interesting.

I'm not going to touch that further, but basically to talk about a little shadow conflict that's been going back and forth with said friend for years about Anthrogenic Global Warming. Now this is as good a friend as one can ask for. He has a razor sharp mind and looks up primary sources of information and justifies his beliefs, and unlike many on all sides who I find hypocritical, I find him remarkably consistent in his internal beliefs.

But when it comes to Science...I mean, to be sure, it isn't that I think he disapproves of science. He doesn't, not by any stretch of the imagination. However, I do know that he has sent me arguments that attack the peer review process. And while it is not perfect, I think that this is an area that's a 'blind spot' for him.

I know I have one. I don't know what it is, but I am pretty damned sure it isn't science.

I have no problem with people who attack a theory in science. Some of the greatest stories in science involve the lone scientist plodding on seeking proof year after year have upended the dominant scientific paradigm and shown us reality for what it was. Galileo, Pasture, Semewies etc.

I have no problem with those who attack a scientific theory. But as soon as you attack the PROCESS, I question the weakness of the argument.

People who attack Anthrogenic Global Warming often use a wide range of arguments, some about the fact that we don't know enough based on the cost (I disagree with this but its perfectly legitimate), or point to sunspots or the like (I find this silly but hey, show me data and ok) and then attack scientists or 'ivory towered intellectuals.' THIS I have a problem with.

Science gives me my computer, my refrigerator, and my ice cream. If you want to drag God into this, you can keep it to yourself. I call myself a Christian, but many wouldn't. And most of them are people who would drag God into this, so I don't feel convinced of their arguments.

A while ago, there was a 'leak' about all this supposedly 'hidden' data that was selectively hacked by a bunch of Russian Hackers. Well, there have been several investigations about it, and it has turned out to largely be perfectly fine. Let me put it this way, outside the circle of Anthrogenic Global Warming deniers, I don't see the scientific community changing their minds.

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. And if you attack science, if you attack the scientific process itself, or your allies do, I'm just not going to support your position.

Now as for civility, I think civility is fine and good, since it allows society to function. But I'm afraid that when you say that the government is oppression, and that anything in the form of taxes is by definition theft, and that those who receive entitlements are parasites, or tolerate closet racism in the form of people who ask to see Obama's long for birth certificate without asking for Bachmann's, or Paul's or McCain's, you lose the moral high ground when liberals call you terrorists for holding the economy hostage.

When your paradigm is essentially, "My way or the high way, and I'll burn everything down if I don't get it", civility isn't really called for.

But to be honest, Liberals were pretty dumb to seek to 'return to it' last election anyway. Civility is great. Even 'fake' civility has its place. I think the insistence in the British Parliament of saying, "The Right Honorable" before addressing a fellow parliamentarian actually DOES insist time and time again that the person has a legitimately elected post in government, even if you then proceed to call them an idiot, monster, etc etc.

I think civility is IDEAL for society, and I think we should have civility, but as I've mentioned before, the only real political real estate up for grabs are Snow Flakes, Wiggams and Road Kill. And while Road Kill might state that they hate incivility (and they do) they also find the emotional center of the left and right points of the narrative, so if the Right pushes emotionally, unless the Left does the same, things get moved farther to the Right.

What I found particularly interesting was another friend who said I might belong on the 5th circle of hell in a "Where would you be in hell" meme. I have not written any post on here with a [Phil] or [Cons] tag in anger. I say things that are fairly polarizing and even insulting to political paradigms, but I will freely insult beliefs but not people unless said people are actively seeking individuals misery.

Civility has its place, but so do other things, and while I encourage and applaud civility, I very often am amused by the superior victim mentality mixed with predatory behavior, particularly since they also make FUN of liberals 'playing the victim.'

The primary difference between the Liberals and the Tea Party though is in my opinion Liberals are considerably more aware of their victimish behavior and make fun of themselves for it, whereas many people in the Tea Party do not.

[Cons] Idea #1

So I've been promising 'ideas' for a while but felt the need to build up to it first, because understanding where I'm coming from helps make a big deal about where I want to go.

There is a super majority of America that does not like where the country is, has little faith in most of our public institutions and wants to fix the whole thing.

That's where it ends. Many many many people agree the system is fundamentally flawed, but there are probably actually more opinions on how to fix it and what is wrong than there are people who hold this opinion. Because this is America damn it, and that's how we roll.

And I'm fine with that. Culture matters. A culture is shaped by its institutions and in turn shapes them....but having said that...

Because we have so many divergent opinions and because it is so hard to form a third party, and because the independents are so fractured and because most people in the two larger camps are very reluctant to leave them because of a fear of being reduced to tactical irrelevance (and they are right to fear that), SOMETHING has to break.

People keep hoping for some kind of 'miracle', but in my experiences the best miracles at the ones that they make themselves.

In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, the only thing that can sufficiently Unite America at the moment is a movement to change the rules. It can be small, like a balanced budget amendment coupled with a constitutional amendment to the states giving third parties free access to the ballot....but I think bigger is better.

I think a movement to reboot the Constitution will take time to build but it is the only thing that will unite enough people to make actual meaningful change. What else could possibly get libertarians and greens to unite except their mutual exclusion by a system that is designed to promote the two party system?

Now I know that these parties have on a low level sometimes cooperated, but I think a Movement is far more likely to succeed, and none of the cooperation they have done has really been a Movement.

A movement has to be about an idea, a simple idea that you can explain in a sentence.

"Why shouldn't women be able to vote?"

"Why should Black people have to go the back of the bus?"

Some movements fail. For example, "Why should America lose a lot of money having a measuring system different than the rest of the world?" But it is a movement. It at least passes the 'simple idea.'

I am not the person who can start a movement, but I do think a movement to change the rules is the most likely way to succeed. A way to crack open the current system to allow new ideas to flourish and new blood to enter washington. A complete (non violent) cleansing of the cesspool.

So while I can't lead, start or really even empower a movement, I can throw ideas out there and see if some of them might be able to make it into 'the package'.

[Phil] The Best Reality Money Can Buy or The Root of the Problem

I am a student of Hypnosis. I admit that the subject has always fascinated me from a fairly young age, and as a result I have studied it quite extensively. I have also studied Fantasy, both in terms of a consumer (enjoyment) and from an amateur academic perspective. One of the papers I wrote in college about Tolkien talks of "Suspension of Disbelief" which I do not take as literally as the originator of the theory. I have, nevertheless, observed a palpable phenomena that it does work.

Simple experiment: Go to a play. Don't watch the play. Watch the audience. The audience is enraptured by the experience. They emotionally connect with the cast members and the situations. Very often this is accomplished with no set or props or costumes to speak of whatsoever. To be sure, if the acting is bad, or there are sufficient distractions 'the magic' does not happen but I argue this ability to adjust one's thinking to one's environment is biologically hardwired into human beings.

Now, certain people, those with Asberger's syndrome or other disorders can't feel this effect. In fact it is one of the things that frustrates them in their ability to function entirely within the rest of society. In addition to their problems understanding facial or body gestures or the like, they very often lack the ability to 'adjust' to the reality around them. Those with Autism are even more effected by this ability. They don't 'adjust' to reality at all, but only care about the most objective of all reality and often take umbrage with items that are highly symbolic or intangible.

Like the idea that the value of our economy is based on the fact that "Because We Said So" instead of something solid like say...Gold. Now am I saying that Gold People are automatically inclined toward Autism? No, not at all, especially since that would directly contradict the point I'm going to continue making below. I am merely stating that I see a marked similarity in behaviors and attitudes on this particular subject.

A LARP is a live action role playing game. It is essentially like Improve Theater with more formal rules that govern the participants with a slight dash of method acting. If you have never tried a LARP, I urge you to do so, especially if you want to try to see the suspension of disbelief in greater effect. Tension in a temporary LARP world is just as real at the moment if you are in your role as a character.

Its almost like a different reality.

A real life example of this is the infamous Standford Prison Guard experiment in which the guards began to take their roles truly seriously and engage in serious abuses of authority. It showed how subjective the mind can truly be. 1984 shows this effect in fiction form, the Stanford Prison Experiment shows that it is a reality.

When I was 18 years old I first observed this effect when I went to a Star Fleet (Star Trek Fan Club) meeting. It disturbed me a little because of how much it felt like my church meetings back when I was still a member of the Mormon church. This is no slight against either Star Trek or the Mormon Church except to say that it felt similar. And I argue that the similarity was that of a cultural shift based on the norms and attitudes and rituals expressed around me.

In other words, we do this every day. When you go to work you have one world, and when you go home to your family, you have another. In many cases you bring your religion or your political beliefs with you. They are a preset series of behaviors, emotional templates and thought patterns that make up your identity, produced to you either by choice, nature or nurture.

Its basic human civilization.

Hypnosis is about altered states of consciousness through hyperfocus. Essentially, it takes advantage of this effect but on a smaller scale of 2 (you and the hypnotist) since even when there are many people being hypnotized, the subject of hypnosis focuses on the hypnotist and establishes rapport with them. The hypnotist is the Narrator who dictates the terms of the story and the parameters of acceptable behavior for that world in which you temporarily agree to abide.

This is one reason why stories are so important to us. Stories hold great power. DARPA has recently begun to pay serious money for scientists to study this effect in human beings so they can help craft narratives to build a nation against insurgents. There is a quiet arms race right now going on that you are more than likely totally unaware of to discover and exploit the power of narrative.

Its one reason I volunteer for the Mythic Imagination Institute.

Are there greater spiritual truths to the universe? I think so, but I don't know what they are. I try to keep an open mind. So I am by no means saying that spiritual experiences are simply an effect of a deranged mind or a LARP. BUT, I will posit that having played a LARP and been in a religion with a highly unorthodox set of beliefs, there are similarities.

Except there are only some similarities. Because a Religion is more of a meta narrative. It affects all of the other narratives by which you view things. When I was Mormon I truly believed. It affected everything I did, thought and said. Again, I'm only saying this so you understand that the phenomena is real, and that I have experienced. Mormons are still among the most honorable, charitable and kind people I know. Several of my family members are Mormons and I do not doubt for a minute that they have had a number of very powerful and very real spiritual experiences. We disagree on the Religion itself, but I will never dismiss or look down on them because they are part of it.

But if a temporary narrative can be crafted in a LARP or the Stanford Prison experiment, and if meta narratives in the form of Religion, Culture or Politics exist, is it truly that unrealistic to belief that a Meta Narrative can be crafted for purposes of politics?

And if the Meta Narrative is sufficiently deviant from objective reality that is only observable, then the people who share that reality with you are going to matter more to you and be trusted by you more than people who aren't. And if Scientists say something that is contrary to the meta narrative, then you're going to have a problem with scientists, or at least Those Particular Scientists.

Members of the Right Reality don't like Economists. At least Economists that don't subscribe to the Austrian School of Economics.

And yes, there, I've said it. The Right Reality is a crafted reality. And I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Koch Brothers who formed the Ludvig von Mises Institute. A while ago, I thought a story I read about the Koch Brothers and the University of Florida where they made a donation to the economics department, but only if they could control who sat on it. Well it turns out that this is not the first time they've done something like this because the Koch brothers essentially took total control of the Ludwig von Mises institute. A university with several neoconferate ties. A university which has issues with the civil rights movement, not 'because they were black' but because 'it was statist.' An institute that is responsible for the meme comparing liberalism to National Socialism. Its all there. Every last word of it.

It all comes back to the Koch Brothers. Rich, Alabama billionares who are upset at the treatment of the confederacy, and determined to rewrite reality itself to justify their beliefs.

Think I'm being to harsh?

The Austrian school of thought considers itself superior to the scientific method. That by definition makes the Austrian school of thought a Pseudo science.

That by definition makes anyone who FOLLOWS the Austrian school of thought a believer in Psuedo Science and therefore a disbeliever in objective reality in favor of their own. Which means how much easier is it to accept other psuedo scientific explanations and arguments such as....a disbelief in Anthrogenic Global Climate Change.

And with sufficient money, one can hire as many experts as you want to legitimize your claim. It worked for the tobacco companies for years.

But it has been done on a larger scale before. The Communist Reality. Previously, communist thought cared more about communist ideology than reality. Trofim Lysenko killed millions of Russians and was responsible in large part for the Soviet Union because of his insistence on his theories being right rather than what was true being right. It was this thinking that later led the Soviets to refuse to get out of Afghanistan even though the knew they were losing.

There is nothing new under the sun. And I posit that the Koch brothers looked at the Communist Reality and, in order to justify their beliefs of the Confederate south, created their own Right Reality using the same methodology.

It is a Reality that transcends and easily blends with Religions and other meta narratives of any conservative bent, and allows them to reinforce each other. It is why Evangelicals are suddenly saying that life begins at conception because they're allied with Catholics even though they did not believe this before. It is why Mormons, who have no doctrinal reason to deny Anthrogenic Climate Change are (at least in the state of Utah) just as skeptical of science in this matter as any Republican.

Because they believe the narration told to them.

As dictated by the Koch Brothers and Roger Ailes of Fox News.

[Phil] A Meme in Action: Are Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals?

So I recently heard a rather interesting statement to me, that Conservatives are shown to be more generous than liberals. I was curious about this, and did a bit of research. So after some research, it seems that the source of this meme is, "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur C. Brooks. Now, conservative blogs that talk about this talk about this as a 'study'. And yet, the study wasn't peer reviewed. It's just a book that Mr. Brooks puts out and can be purchased on Amazon for a rather moderate price.

However, I found these counterpoints rather interesting. And upon investigation, Mr. Brooks was president of the American Enterprise Institute. Indeed, his other book titles include, "Big Government Vs Free Enterprise" and "Gross National Happiness."

So I think Mr. Brooks is the personification of the Right Reality vs the Reality Reality. Is it arrogant of me to call the Reality Reality such? I suppose it is, but I define a Reality as the paradigm by which you view the universe. A perspective.

Do you believe in magic? Do you believe in God? Do you believe in Science? These might seem arbitrary but they aren't.

Such questions affect everything about how you perceive the universe, and also subtly effect your behavior. Conservatives, to me, seem to value Loyalty more than Truth. Liberals, however value Empathy more than Loyalty (hence their lack of cohesion as a political philsophy) but Liberals tend to put a much higher value on Truth than Conservatives.

And when Truth is not your highest virtue, you have a tendency to pick facts that suit your viewpoint. Everyone does it. Now granted, some people start from a truly 'neutral' point of view and work their way towards an inertia and are willing to correct themselves. Conan Indpendents are generally willing to do this.

I've never stated what my political position is on the map, and it is obvious I give a lot of respect to what I call Conans. There's some truth in that but I'm more of a non definable independent. To me, I fight Evil. I fight for what I consider 'Good' and that means any issue that is harming people or even a minority. There are some general principals that guide me but no hard fixed law, because I've found such are pointless. Right now, it is the Rush/Beck Republicans and Clinton Democrats I consider "evil" but some ideas advocated by any of the political philosophies could just as easily be such, but I'm part Wiggam in that I'm totally willing to join any group and advocate that group to fight evil, even if it means fighting the greater evil at the expense of a lesser.

Part of that is the understanding that for meaningful change, people need to form organized groups and work at that for a consistent period of time. That is why Conservative Ideology is winning over liberals, but it is only part of it.

Liberals fight back but they don't share a single ideology or message about how to do it. In fact the only thing REALLY stopping Conservatives from total victory is, quite frankly, most of their policies make them look like assholes.

That is to say, they are often great people individually, but they place so much conviction on their beliefs, that when they are actually applied, people suffer. People care more about emotional truth than academic truth. That's a given, and they've learned their lessons from that and created emotional truisms by merging Religion and Economics such that to be Rich is to be Godly. But I'm not touching religion in this blog any more than I have to.

My point is, that when people have a friend or family member suffer because xyz program got cut, then they remember it. Of course now with FOX, the Right Reality can say that your Medicare got cut because of evil Democrat's and their health care plan. Two totally opposing facts can be defined.

I want to say that Conservatives are more prone than liberals to pick and choose their facts based on emotional beliefs. Anecdotally, this seems to be my observation. But the truth is that I think this is really actually more based on emotional beliefs. The more emotional you are about something, the more likely you are to warp your truth or your perspective of reality to make it seem that way, and right now Conservatives are far more passionate than liberals. I'm not saying that Liberals are not passionate, but to be willing to pick up a gun and shoot people if you don't get your way kind of by definition makes you passionate. And while the VAST majority of conservatives are not violent, if you listen to what they say under the right circumstances, their threshold for 'armed revolt' is far lower than that of liberals.

But more to the point, there is an orchestrated campaign to harness the values of conservatives to the cause of the Elite. Read the comments on the internet, and I mean as objectively as you can. Both liberals and conservatives rant about the 'elites' and 'those rotten politicians in washington.' They can agree on that but not on the solution.

Well, I argue that this is by design. In fact, only by agreeing to form a purely grass roots movement to change the rules (like say...rebooting the constitution) can any REAL change be manifested. The Tea Party movement is working but its temporary. At some point, the liberals will actually become the thing that the Right is accusing them of being. They will get a spine and they will act like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. American liberals are NOT communists or nazis, but faced with desperation, even hippies get claws, and a movement of a comparable strength to the Tea Party WILL take place on the left.

So back to my point on Mr. Brooks. So he takes some interesting facts, specifically, amount donated to charity by state, and uses it to determine who is generous and who is not. Now, he uses time as well, but here is an interesting fact: Tithing donations to religious institutions are considered 'charitable.' Mr. Brooks therefore makes no distinction between a dollar given to a religion that pays a clergy member, builds a church, or pays for a soup kitchen.

So we come again to my point about differing realities. And its only going to get worse.

This has happened before, this will happen again

I was originally going to explain the difference between parties and movements, and things that could be done to make parties more viable, and/or movements more viable.

I have a lot of ideas to this effect.

It doesn't matter. I now understand that the Tea Party was encouraged and expected. The Tea Part WAS a legitimate revolt against the failure of our society, but the seeds were planted to basically ensure that the primary mechanisms to stop the ruling oligarchy have already been prelegitimized by years of programming.

I mean look again at my road map. America is a disunited Political mess and I'm not sure it can be saved. I'm sure the Tea Baggers feel the same way, but the truth of the matter is....things will need to get a lot worse before they get better but on TOP of that with new psyops and such, any new movement is likely to be coopted, regardless of its political leanings unless certain steps are taken at the most basic root level.

I'll have to think more on this.

I'm not shutting down the blog, but I will have to tweak it slightly.

[Phil] The Holy Grail of the Third Party

So what is my purpose in doing this? I mean, aside from a platform, what do I actually hope to accomplish? Well, I am not connected, so I have no hope of influencing large numbers of people that way, nor am I wealthy (the real way you influence things) and even if I someday become such, it takes decades to truly change things, nor am I tremendously charismatic, so swaying large amounts of people by weight of my personality alone won’t do much. All the reason skills in the universe never swayed anyone to the truth when it came to politics, not really in my observation. There are a handful of individuals who even truly attempt this and of those that mostly succeed at it, even they occasionally allow emotion or superstition to influence their actions.

We are human beings, we are not machines.

But there are two things I *DO* do very well. I am very good at analyzing the meta level of a situation, the larger term consequences of actions and patterns of history, and I am also good at coming up with ideas. And that, despite all of the ground work I’ve laid up to this point, is why I’m doing this. Concrete actual ideas to help and empower anyone else out there who MIGHT read this, and might be able to use one of these ideas.

There is a quote from Heinlein I like a lot. “An armed society is a polite society.” Conversely, the more ideas that work that people out there have, the more likely actual change is to take effect.

So first let me explain my perspective of third parties. Those who say, “We need a third party” typically have multiple motivations, and that motivation should affect your tactical action.

1) A disgust with the way things are done in Washington: If you truly desire to effect change, you need to ask yourself, is the change more important or is the third party? IE do you care if your idea is adopted by one of the two parties or do you insist that your third party of choice, existing or non-existing gets it done?

2) Snowflakism: Many of those who say that they want a third party are really either snowflakes or road kill who have no real ideology, or simply a vague ideology of one of the other two parties and don’t want change. And if so, no amount of convincing will change their mind, because fixing things isn’t really their desire.

3) A true desire to form a third party that governs: That’s rarer. But why? I mean, why do you REALLY want said third party?

Third Parties or independent candidates are best in this country at changing the debate. They have been most successful at adding ideas that people hadn’t previously considered, and that one of the two parties thought was such a good idea that they took it up and implemented it.

So I would argue that if your true desire is to change something, you’re really better off finding ways outside of a party, which is logistically a very difficult undertaking and takes DECADES to do properly.

Here is a brief history of my view of third parties in this country:

Major Successes

The Republican Party: Mainly because they were a third party that became one of the two major parties. The circumstances required to do this required an implosion of one of the two major parties (the Whigs) and a titanic social issue (Slavery) that united two disparate factions in the common cause of defeating the Democrats and changing things. At first these factions fought each other TREMENDOUSLY but over time some common elements of their platform emerged, but really these wings fought with each other until 1994 when the ‘moderate business faction’ began to die its final death. It is now an empty shell in the undead elephant.

Minor Successes
The Libertarian Party: The Libertarian Party has never, so far as I know, won a major election since its inception. In fact, honestly, I’d consider the Libertarian party a joke except for two exceptional facts: 1) It is, so far as I can tell, in EVERY state in the country, and most jurisdictions and has been for several decades and 2) ½ the Libertarian ideology has been successfully reborn in the Tea Party, and the Tea Party has been a remarkable success. The Tea Party is a Movement, not a party, and as a Movement, their message is winning. They might not think that, it might not last, but they are nonetheless. Having a complete wimp for a president helps that success.

The Bull Moose Party: The Force of Nature in a human being, aka Teddy Roosevelt, aka my favorite president after Washington (who had the guts to refuse a crown and give away power when he didn’t have to) started this party after the human Blimp that was William Taft crapped all over the good that TR had done in his tenure, and started acting a lot like the more normal Republican party I know and loathe today. The Bull Moose Party had all kinds of ideas for reform, most of which were taken up by the Democrats…and put into place in later reforms. So while they never won power or had staying power, their ideas lived on.

So, if you’re REALLY serious about a third party, let’s consider:
1) WHY is the existence of a third party needed for the prof-ligation of your ideas to fix everything?
2) Are you prepared to actually put together a governing coalition?

Both of these are important. I argue that my biggest problem with the libertarians (well there is another but I’ll do that in another post) is that they are in complete denial of #2. I mean, they make no real efforts at finding policies that people are actually going to want. They insult the government a lot, but they offer very few realistic ideas to solve problems. I have a friend that has ideas, but really, last I checked he isn’t the head of a Libertarian party somewhere.

And to be honest I have the same issue with the Greens. Aside from the horror stories I’ve heard of small, petty minded people who control local chapters more for their own aggrandizement than actually accomplishing anything I also take umbrage with their refusal to unite with the Democrats to replace Bush in 2004. In parliamentary systems you form coalitions.

So even if we change the rules to make third parties easier in this country (something I’m all for) is your party REALLY serious about governing or are they anarchist nihilists like the Tea Party?

I mean, I hope the Tea Party realizes that this country doesn’t really tolerate terrorists for too long. I mean, I know some people will be upset by that, but pointing a gun at the head of the country and its credit or pretending that the credit rating doesn’t matter when you KNOW it does (unless you’re naive or willfully ignorant) is pretty much terrorism. And only wimps give in to terrorism.

What would the Tea Party have done if we didn't have Carter II in the White House?

And I, for one am done with the wimps that lead the Democratic party…so I’m willing to empower the Libertarians, or the Greens or anyone else for that matter that will take out the Rush/Beck Republicans and the Clinton Democrats. And I’ve got ideas.
But you have to be serious.

You have to REALLY want to change things, but as I explained in my road map, in my observation only a handful are.

Soon, in my next post or one soon after that, I’ll explain in my observation the tools and circumstances that it will take to really accomplish that.

[????] The Christmas Truce

I am not a wimp, but I've learned that all of life is not about anger either. There are only so many times you can say 'I told you so' before you become a characterization. Lifting a word of warning is one thing. Stating what you believe is another. And yet, I think sometimes looking back at those magic moments in the world where people WERE able to overcome their difficulties and differences helps.

Especially in the darkest of times.

The Christmas Truce is a famous story often told around Christmas, about a Christmas eve long ago where the Germans and Allies stopped their fighting and put it aside for one night to have a spot of good will between them. I think the elements of culture the two sides shared helped make this possible. Sometimes sharing a moment together can make a difference.

I think the thing that makes this particularly poignant for me is....its not like they didn't hate each other. I mean seriously, read the propaganda at the time. They went so far as to rename everything German with an Americanized name. Furthermore, there was so much animosity on the side of the allies, that when Germany surrendered they saddled it with a debt so crushing that, when combined with the depression forced the people to accept whatever crazy ideas came along that would give them hope.

And we all know how that went.

So the fact that this happened was amazing. It was, literally, in my mind a miracle.

Miracles happen. They do exist. Its hard to understand them, but miracles happen sometimes. Although, in this context, the larger elements still stayed in play. That is to say, the miracle was a window in time where man acted in his best possible nature, but the historical tides before it and after it continued.

I've had miracles in my life, but many of them have been brief respites such as this rather than lasting life changing events that lasted for the better. In one instance in particular, I was able to be an instance of benevolence in someone else's life and (I hope) make it better, but I paid for it with a week or two of near starvation.

Miracles often come with costs attached, but that doesn't mean that they don't happen, and they're important to recognize when they do. I'm not speaking from a supernatural perspective but purely a spiritual one. There is something in us that needs to recognize wonder and beauty when we see it, for otherwise why are we really here? I argue that it is the moments of wonder in life that matter most, not the mundane ones; even if the work in the mundane times is what often makes wonder possible.

[Cons] My political road map of America

I started this out with my list of how to topple the current regime in the American Empire but I'll need to save that for tomorrow. When I started my 'road map' to explain some of my terminology for needed coalitions and actions, I found it took WAY more time than I thought, since real American politics is complicated.



Republicans:

Reagan Republicans: These are moderately fiscally conservative, moderately social conservative Republicans who are strong on defense, but who are also capable of compromising with the Democratic party when need be. Many of them now call themselves Independent because they feel their party no longer represents them.[Personally I consider Obama a Reagan Republican, but most Reagan Republicans would beg to disagree.]

Rush Republicans: Radically fiscally conservative and moderately social republicans who speak the language of radically social conservatives. They are the owners of the Right Reality, and dictate its narrative. They control the keys to the kingdom and the infrastructure that allow the Right Reality to function. They are ‘the man’ which all other political factions in the United States would do well to overcome but not without great cost, time and difficulty.

Beck Republicans: Radically fiscally conservative and Radically socially conservative, they invoke Godwin more often than God. These are the foot soldiers in the Rush-Beck alliance. They are the enforcers of the Right Reality. While the Rush republicans might control the narrative, the Beck Republicans enforce it and threaten to vote out the Rush Republicans that do not heed their call.

Rockefeller Republicans: Moderate fiscal and liberal social Republicans, they are a
dying breed. Really, there are none in office, but I still believe there are large populations of them, particularly in the North East. I think many of them now call themselves independent and no longer consider themselves part of the Republican party. I take back my earlier statement…Joe Lieberman might be a good example of a Rockefeller Republican.

Roosevelt Republicans: As in Teddy Roosevelt. Moderate Fiscal and Moderate Social Republicans, they’re also strong on defense but pragmatic enough that they not only get along with Democrats but actively work with them. The primary distinguisher in my opinion between Reagan and Roosevelt Republicans is that Reagan Republicans are moderate enough to be bothered by the current Republican party to detach themselves from it, but still subscribe to the Right Reality whereas Roosevelt Republicans subscribe to the Reality Reality. Meagan McCain is probably the best example of a prominent Roosevelt Republican that I can think of. Ron Paul’s behavior (but not his actual political beliefs) also exemplify this philosophy. John McCain of 2000 would be another excellent example of this. They’re the Republicans I like the most, and wish we had more of.

Democrats
Clinton Democrats: AKA Corporate Dems, AKA Blue Dog dems. Fiscally conservative and moderate socially. The truth of the matter is that they are very milquetoast on social issues and really only care about them to nose ring and control the democratic party. They’re very fiscally conservative and they are in an unholy alliance with the Rush and Beck (and formerly Reagan) Republicans to lock out all other factions. They, more than any other faction, believe in the status quo, and are the token democrats Wall Street billionaires give their money to. They are ‘the pragmatists’ that really don’t believe in anything but tell themselves they do. But they’re scrappy, and they’re fighters. Good examples of Clinton Democrats include the Clintons and Rom Emmanuel. Most of Obama’s cabinet are Clinton Democrats. They are part of the regime all other factions would do well to over throw.

LBJ Democrats: Statists. Moderately conservative, socially very liberal. They are fractured and often largely divided by identity politics, focusing more on their identity than their ideology when it comes to their voting record. They are the most numerous faction in the Democratic party and formerly the enforcers of the Democratic Party narrative. They still have power but are easily distracted and placated by the Clinton Democrats. It is the LBJ Democrats that let the Clinton Democrats retain power, but the resentment in LBJ democrats is slowly building but still easily exploited.

Roosevelt Democrats: Liberal economically and liberal socially. They are ideologists. These are Progressives, and they know how to fight. They understand the power of narrative and they were the previous creators of the narrative of the Democratic Party but were horribly weakened by the Carter/Kennedy fight in 1980, and have been out of power ever since. Howard Dean, Joe Biden, Senator Franken, Senator Gillibrand, and Alan Grayson are an example of this faction. They’re honestly the ones that I want in charge of the Democratic Party and while they are still slowly building an infrastructure to counter the Clinton Democrats, I don’t think most of them REALLY understand what it is that they’re up against. They are also extremely loyal to the Democratic Party.

Kucinich Democrats: Very liberal economically and very liberal socially. These are the guys who were to the left of Roosevelt even when the democrats dominated everything. These are the guys who would actually be considered the Left in much of the world, particularly in Europe. They don’t give up, they don’t give in. They compromise when they must but only reluctantly. Sometimes they go too far, and sometimes they’re responsible for the crazy that is associated with and discredits the entire left as narrated by the Right Reality, but I admire them, for no other reason than they have the strongest conviction of any political faction and they drive the Beck Republicans apoplectic. They are not tied to the Democratic Party at all even though they often vote Democratic. They are also the most likely faction to truly split and form their own party.

Archie Bunker Democrats: I can’t really call these Reagan Democrats because I respect Reagan too much for that. They used to be Yellow Dog democrats, but that term is also old fashioned at this point because they’re all over the country. Unionists. Working men, but also guys who largely believe in a world gone by. They don’t like where the Democratic Party has gone and frequently vote for the Republicans. They’re generally moderately conservative and socially liberal, but because of their beliefs easily exploited by Rush Republicans into believing that the Clinton Democrats are working against their interests. This is actually the truth but its not like the Rush Republicans are a better alternative. They’re just better at selling the message.

Independents

There are so many factions of independents that trying to name them all is functionally impossible, but I’m going to give it a try.

Ron Paul Libertarians: Look, the fact of the matter is while many of them camp out in the Republican Party, they’re really libertarians. Socially moderate and fiscally conservative, they have honor, principals and yet some beliefs that quite frankly I don’t agree with. But I can agree to disagree with them. I think the thing that sets Ron Paul Libertarians apart the most is that they are strict constitutionalists. Unfortunately, the other thing that sets Ron Paul Libertarians apart the most is that they are one of the two independent factions that are most likely to subscribe to the Right Reality, even if many of them are Worldwalkers (capable of understanding or viewing the Reality Reality). This means that it can be very difficult for other factions of independents or democrats to build a coalition with them.

Nolan Libertarians: Socially moderate to liberal and fiscally moderate but weird. They are what I might call ‘libertarian libertarians’ in that they are one of the hardest factions to characterize that still actually have a coherent ideology. They subscribe to much of the views of Heinlein and the saner parts of Randian philosophy. I think the other major difference between them and the Ron Paul libertarians is that they want little or nothing to do with the Republican party and they are more driven by the Reality Reality, though they are slowly being coopted into the Right Reality by the recent usurpation of the Cato institute by Rush sleeper agents.

Nader Greens: Very liberal socially and very liberal economically. They have a lot of really interesting ideas. There is often a close alliance between the Kucinich Democrats and the Nader Greens, but the primary difference between the two is that Nader Greens are pretty much OVER voting for the Democratic Party at this point. I can’t say I blame them, but then again, they weren’t even willing to form a coalition to defeat Bush in 2004.

Anarchists: Really, I can’t put a name to anarchists, because each one is his own island. And I can’t say they’re liberal or conservative socially or economically. They are a faction unto themselves but they do, at the least have an ideology and vote or don’t vote as they see fit. But they by and large DON’T do coalitions.

Conan Independents: Like Anarchists, there are as many philosophies in this camp as there are people so naming someone as their leader is difficult so I choose Conan. No, not the guy with show, the guy with the sword. They wander the land and fight for causes they feel are just, sometimes wisely, sometimes foolishly but they are informed, they choose their issues and their stands on them independent from each other, walk between the Right Reality and the Reality Reality at will, form coalitions as they need to and yet still retain their independence. I admire them for it and consider them the most American of American factions. They are, however, still sometimes deceived.

Snowflakes: Ill-informed independents or just people who don’t give a damn or who consider themselves above it all. This is the largest faction of independents. They don’t form coalitions but they will often vote for whoever has the winning tide or the incumbent. They have no ideology except their own comfort and occasionally that of their friends. Snowflakes do not form coalitions.

Wiggams: Everything is great. Everything is fine. I like ice cream. I will vote for someone because they have good hair. Because they have a nice voice. Because they are the incumbent. Wiggams are too clueless to have an indentity but are very gregarious and wander in among many factions pretending to be members of that faction and probably even firmly believing that they are. They don’t have an ideology so much as a particular direction that they’re going at the time.

Roadkills: The middle of the road faction that moves to the middle of the road based on the Narrative provided by the Left and the Right. No matter what the situation, they will listen to both sides and plant themselves firmly in the middle. They are the second most popular faction among Independents and unlike Snowflakes, they will almost always vote. These guys are the reasons many people go nuts in polls trying to understand why neither the Left nor the Right has any dominance. They form coalitions but are more like chaff in the wind. They are neither admirable nor interesting but they are, however, easily exploitable, and anyone interested in overturning the Rush/Beck/Clinton regime would do well to cater to their instincts, which of course means seizing the Narrative.

[Link] An article anyone who believes in freedom should read

Civil Disobedience vs. Corporate Rule

[Phil] The Rule of Comfort

There is a classic struggle that is far older than my life time in philosophy between the Rule of Might and the Rule of Law. The thumbnail version of this. The rule of Might is the rule of the strong. Whoever commands society with the biggest army, the most weapons and the most fear is the one who determines what happens. The rule of Law basically states that members of a society get together and decide the way things SHOULD be with laws, and then those laws are applied evenly to members of society.
I posit that there is a third state, and that it is really ultimately the glue that makes civilization work. It is the Rule of Comfort. Most people live their lives significantly on autopilot, establishing a set degree of patterns that they enjoy. When those patterns are disrupted, there is discomfort. Sometimes this is something they can do something about it, and sometimes there isn’t.

A lot of time and a lot of money have been spent studying people and what makes them tick. Sociology, Psychology and Marketing have made amazing discoveries into the nature of the human mind, and when combined with the advances in medicine that we’re making they’re going to be making even more. Fortunately, there is a lot of what makes humanity tick that is still an unknown X factor. It is why regimes that are corrupt or evil are toppled. Its why the Arab spring was able to happen. Its why the Berlin wall was able to fall.

The instant we have a perfect understanding of the human mind is the instant that a perfect tyranny will rise up to enslave it. There is actually some legitimate fear on the part of libertarians at the concentration of too much power in one place. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

People do not realize the consequences of the government obtaining all of the power that it is in the United States. One crisis after another accrues more power, and the government never gives it up once it has it. Right now, the people of the United States, despite all of their suffering, still enjoy tremendous wealth, prosperity and opportunity though that is slowly being taken away bit by bit.
Of course part of the problem is that the people can’t unite very easily. They are kept separated, in part by an artificial drama of conflict where often there is none, but also in part by diverging definitions of realities. Seriously, when you can’t agree on some of the most basic facts, how can you unite on a single principal?
One of the things I’ll be discussing in future entries are concrete ACTUAL methods and steps that can be used to fix things. They’re not going to fix themselves. The inertia is too strong. The same comfort that keeps Americans from pouring out into the streets in rage at what is being done by Wall Street and Washington is the comfort in Washington, in the Village (Corporate Media), and Wall Street itself. People blame ‘the system’ without attaching emotional value to it. It Is easy to have good will toward a brand but harder to have negative feelings to it unless it affects you personally.

People who had their lives ruined by BP in the oil spill may or may not ever forgive the company. But Americans who saw it on the television will quickly forget it within a few months. Their collective memory has been wiped clean, in part by the internet, and also the wealth of opportunities of distraction and also in part by the extra work they have to do each day to survive, and also in part by the shared apathy of their peers. Liberals and Independents are fractured. Conservatives are strong and motivated and focused, but only on destruction. They know that they want smaller government but aren’t really trying to work Liberals and Independents to establish common ground.

The Debt Ceiling is a crucible. But I would argue that the real crisis, the real changing of the rules will be something that no one expects. After all in Tunisia it was a fruit cart that finally set things off. I know people so I know Americans ARE capable of moving out into the streets…..but the threshold is much higher. And even if they do, there are so many traps designed to catch that anger once it occurs, pundits designed to blur the lines with talking heads, divergent reality interpreters who will state that what is happening is directly the opposite of what is actually happening that even should that ‘magic moment’ occur there will be no focus to it. More than likely it will simply be a series of riots such as what occurred in Los Angeles after Rodney King.

When I went on my mission to Venezuela, there was a coup attempt. I saw the way people acted and it was listless, and somewhat chaotic. One of the reasons I call civilization an illusion is because unlike say…a rock, civilization can stop being such at any particular time. But it is the most persistent reality we have, because we want it. We are biologically hardwired to seek the status quo. It is this basic desire for comfort that makes dictatorships able to do as much as they are. A true democracy requires a level of diligence. Ben Franklin was not lying when he said, “We have a Republic. Now let us see if you can keep it.”

Inertia is a tough thing. 200 years of freedom makes overturning it difficult without finesse, but at the same time that freedom can be overturned much quicker than you think, especially when the antibodies/immune system of society have been coopted in a poisonous reality. But that is the subject for another post.

[Rant] Who is to blame for the debt crisis?

The American People, that's who.

Republicans are doing what they were elected to do, shorten spending at any cost. They only kind of lied this time. Sure they've voted for deficits in the past, but the American People decided that it was more important to Send a Message to Washington this time than think about the consequences of what they were doing.

Some, of course, including many tea partiers knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They want the government, and certainly at the least the government we know to come crashing down.

They consider people that rely on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, you know 'entitlements' to be parasites. They think that people that get their money from the government haven't 'earned' what they got. I laugh at the people who believe this. Obviously they've never talked to someone who lives on those benefits. I'd love to see some tea partier call a WWII veteran a 'parasite' because they're on social security.

Of course to the leadership of this movement, this is revenge against the baby boomers for the 60's. Roger Ailes and the Koch Brothers want to ensure that THEY never get the 'entitlements' because they dared do things like Brown Vs Board of Education, the Civil Rights movement and Equal Rights for Women (all of which, by the way, required a powerful federal government, as did the end of Slavery.)

But the American People? The majority of them failed.

*Stayed Home
*Voted for a third party (nothing wrong with this but they cared more about their right to vote for a third party than care about what the Republicans would do)
*Voted Republican

I mean, Democrats often vote for Democrats for dumb reasons and don't think more than Republicans do, but the one thing you CAN'T do is blame Democrats for what Republicans are doing regarding the deficit.

Unless, of course, you're one of those people who thinks what the Republicans are doing moving us towards the edge of doom via the current debt crisis is a feature, not a bug.

To which I say, Fuck You.

[RANT] Why Democrats Should Vote to Impeach Obama

Impeachment does not serve its proper constitutional function. There have only been two presidents in history who have been impeached, and both of them were for political charges. Andrew Johnson, because he didn't support carpet baggers that wanted to destroy the South, and Bill Clinton, because he existed. And if you think Perjury is an impeachable offense and don't think Bush should have been impeached, then just stop reading here.

So, as I said, history has demonstrated that at least for presidents and I think largely for most else, Impeachment is a Political, not a constitutional or legal process. The opposition party or faction has used it to weaken the President.

The current President has already committed at least two impeachable offenses, violating the War Powers Act by continuing hostile action in Libya without consulting congress (they eventually got around to it) and failure to prosecute George W. Bush and members of his cabinet for the War Crimes they initiated in the invasion to Iraq. Technically you could blame Holder for that, but Obama can remove him office.

But I'm speaking in political terms.

Obama is essentially a Republican president at this point. Yes, he nominates slightly less crazy people than Republicans. Yes, there is a difference, but you have to understand that party discipline is paramount. If a party can't enforce its own principals, its worse than useless. The dems keep caving and in part that is because Obama is basically a Reagan Republican.

The Republicans would love to impeach him because it empowers them but don't have the votes for it.

The Democrats should impeach him because he's a Republican. He has shut out the Democratic members of the legislature time and time again. He doesn't support democratic legislative priorities.

Removing him from office would make Biden president. Biden might say he supports the President but I REALLY doubt he'd give away the store like Obama is.

Failure to remove Obama from office will mean a likely Republican victory in 2012, as seniors, furious at being betrayed on Social Security, vote for a Republican rather than vote for Obama. Yes, Republicans will be worse, but they won't care.

People will want to 'send a message' just like they did in 2010. Do you honestly expect people to gain more of a memory or more intelligence in 2 short years? I don't.

Which means if Democrats want a chance of victory in 2012, they need to impeach Obama NOW.

Now there is some bipartisanship.

[CONS] NeoFederalism

Federalism is one of the strengths that makes the United States different than other countries. In my observation, confederations do not work. Europe is either going to disintegrate or integrate more. There are of course, conflicting camps in Europe, but as the current crisis with the Euro is showing, the status quo cannot stand. I personally think the odds are 65% towards an integration at a financial level within 5-15 years. The other 30% chance most likely possibility to me is the creation of a ‘probation’ status for some nations, removing their ability to print their own Euro’s, and I just don’t see that working. More than likely any nation placed on such a status will remove itself from the EU.

Federalism is woven into the United States on every level, even its name. There are many progressives who believe the time has come to dissolve state governments. When I look at the state government of MY state, I can’t blame them. Even when Republicans control every element of state government, they can’t get any work done on real issues. They barely managed to repeal the stupid blue law prohibiting Sunday sales of alcohol, but they have done nothing to resolve critical issues of education, transportation and water, much less doing anything meaningful to fix the economy.
This is not a praise of Democrats. They did little while they were in power. In fact for the entire duration of while I’ve been here, I have had little but contempt for all but a small handful of state politicians.

The same story is repeated over and over again in other states like Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Iowa, Kansas etc. States spend more time catering to their rabid psychotic base than they do trying to fix real issues. I have nothing but contempt for the ‘both sides are equal’ mantra, but in this case I will say that the democrats have real problems too. When I got my state pest control license in California it was a nightmare. When they put a tax lien on me for a the income I supposedly MIGHT have earned (even though I was out of state) it took TEN YEARS of dealing with the labyrinth that was their state to deal with it. And while some progress has been shown recently (now that it doesn’t take TWO THIRDS MAJORITY to pass a budget (an idiotic idea approved and repeatedly approved by the voters until they finally realized why it doesn’t work) the democrats are still so wedded to their support of public unions that they refuse to decriminalize a host of issues due to the lobbying of the state prison guards. This, despite the fact that their prisons are the worst in the nation, and have been ordered by the Supreme Court to lessen their population. And I say this as someone who supports the idea of unions and even public employees unions. California is MESSED UP.

But the Federal government is no better. I’ll be tearing it apart enough in subsequent posts without a need to go into detail but everyone who is not in the Village knows that Washington stopped functioning long ago. Exactly when that was varies depending on what reality you observe and how conservative you are, but everyone agrees that it is broken.

But if the Federal government is broken (and it is) how would making the states go away or replacing them with ‘regional districts’ make things any better?

Answer: It wouldn’t.

Having said that, I think the Romans had the right idea. When their empire started to decay, they moved the capital. This renewal kept them around as the Roman Empire for another few centuries and as the Byzantines for another 1000 years after that.
After a certain amount of time, a government just begins to become corrupt. The corridors and levers of power ossify and need to be shaken up. All the more reason then, for an entirely new Constitution.

But on top of that, I believe that we are too fixated on the borders of states. We need states. And states should be as powerful (if not MORE powerful) than they currently are. But there are some problems with states as they are, that go way beyond their utterly broken and useless state legislatures. One of these is the tendency in multiple states for one part of the state to loot the rest of the state for their own benefit. In Georgia, the rural parts of the state loot the Atlanta Tax base without providing any meaningful report in return. Due to Republican and rural opposition to Marta, it has to go hat in hand to the state legislature to use its own money. In California, the South loots the North. The Cities loot the Suburbs. In Illinois, Chicago dominates the state entire state. In New York, the private prison cities jack up the severity of the laws to incarcerate and kidnap citizens of New York City to maintain their local populations. In North Carolina, there has been feuding between the mountains and the flat lands for as long as the state has existed.

How do you solve this problem equitably?

My solution is to allow residents to create their own state. There have to be rules to this, but I believe it could work. You do it by predefined regions roughly along the lines of Zip Codes. Every 20 years, people get to vote on which state they want their ‘zip code’ to be a part of. The state has to be a line of continuous unbroken territory. It has to have a minimum population (at least enough to have 1 representative in the House of Representatives or whatever body represents population) and it has to have a State Constitution that at least 60% of the members of that prospective state approve.

I think this could best be accomplished by having a select set of state packages, such as “Georgia” or “Atlanta” or “North Georgia” etc. These packages would include boundaries and a proposed constitution to include those boundaries. You would vote for your preferred border set, and then approve or reject the proposed constitution for each package in a separate section of the ballot.

The default would be the status quo. Yes, that means you could keep things the same by rejecting all existing new constitutions, but on the other hand if a zip code was sufficiently motivated to leave a state and set up their own state, or even just jump over to the nearby bordering state, they stand a better chance of doing it.
There are some problems with this. Poor areas or minority areas would try to be removed from richer states. This could be countered with greater federal subsidies (which would be more possible in a new constitution). Radical constitutions would potentially be snuck by people, but honestly, given the fact that our current constitution is routinely ignored and candidates lie all the time, I don’t see much difference. At some point voters need to take responsibility for their own actions.
Such a radical reconfiguration of the way states work would, in my opinion, not be possible with a simple amendment. It would be legal (I checked) but it would greatly confuse the issue and allow previous precedent regarding states to interfere with the new process. A lot of things can be fixed with simple amendments but I believe the ability to let people choose their own states would not be possible without a total reboot of the constitution, which is, I believe, my strongest argument (but certainly not my only argument) for the need for a restart.