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However, this controversy has been replaced by a controversy over Bestiality, not the kind you might think but the voluntary injection of huge amounts of animal DNA into their genomes, so Furry's and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'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)