Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
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.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
[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.
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.
Monday, September 26, 2011
[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.
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.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
[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.
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.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
[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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)