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However, this controversy has been replaced by a controversy over Bestiality, not the kind you might think but the voluntary injection of huge amounts of animal DNA into their genomes, so Furry's and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 ;)
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
[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.
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.
Monday, August 22, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
[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.
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.
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.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
[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.
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.
Friday, August 5, 2011
[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'.
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'.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
[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.
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.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
[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.
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.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
[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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)