13 November 2008
Past, Present, and Future
The three branches in government act as three organs of the American body. They have a specific function used to guide the body in the best direction. They all have a sensory input to the body. The judiciary is sensitive to the past. They guide the country when it forgets its roots, the goals and ideals of the Enlightenment. The congress is the present. Responsible only to its constituents, it is concerned with their pressing needs. This is why only CONGRESS can declare war and why war can never be justifiably preemptive. The president has future preception, and it is his respobsibility to introduce change to the system and convince everyone its needed. More on this later perhaps, I just wanted to get it down when it was still in my head.
12 November 2008
Let them fail
Our government is once again using fear as a tactic, but this time it isn't rationalized as a reason to go to war. Maybe they don't realize they're doing it this time. We are frightened to death of change. Yes, I know we just elected a leader who promised to bring "change" to the country, but what I'm talking about is systematic change. We are afraid to lose our way of life. This needs a little historical introduction as a headnote to get everyone on the same train of thought.
In the 1700s the English and French began discussing the nature of nature. They asked themselves, what was it all like before these creations of man? How did mankind exist when it was analogous to animals? What made man tansform into the creature he is today? SELF INTEREST. Then, having discussed how society functioned in State of Nature, they discussed what improvements were most effective. These thinkers came up with three ideas that are essential to cooperation in the Human race, only three limits that ought to be placed on self interest that actually increase the productive powers of self interest: the rights to life, liberty, and property. In the 1700s the Scots thought up something great. They theorized that by making the economy (the method in which humans interact with material goods) equivalent to the state of nature they could use this most inherent of human characteristics to increase productivity and raise the standard of living for all. In this capitalist system, the strong and smart would prevail while the weak and timid fail.
We are nearly scared to death of Capitalism. If our banks fail, we die, apparantly. What we don't realize is this failure is the very thing that makes capitalism work! If life is one large learning experience, then mistakes are good for our future. If we do not fail, there can be no progress. The system that we have obviously is not perfect. By bailing out these large financial institutions we are preserving an imperfect system so as to not take that leap of innovation and adaptation. The only real way to influence business is to show that it is unprofitable to engage in a course of action. By bailing out the large financial institutions we are negating that effect. If we truly are capitalist we should stop acting in this manner.
If we are not capitalist, then we should stop teaching it in schools and stop proclaiming it to the world. Capitalism allowed a Nation to rise in this land. It allowed immigrants a place where their hard work was not co-opted by another's interest. It gave them the opportunity to act in a self interested way. In fact, the self interest is the only reason they are here in the first place!
There are no barriers in the country, yet we set a dangerous precedent in these recent acts. We now proclaim: We are capitalist untill stormy seas appear on the horizon. That is unacceptable in my eyes. Adapt and survive. Let the weak fall and the strong rise to take their place. These are the laws that govern nature and supposedly our economic theory. Its about time we started looking to it.
as a side note:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21879&news_iv_ctrl=1021
In the 1700s the English and French began discussing the nature of nature. They asked themselves, what was it all like before these creations of man? How did mankind exist when it was analogous to animals? What made man tansform into the creature he is today? SELF INTEREST. Then, having discussed how society functioned in State of Nature, they discussed what improvements were most effective. These thinkers came up with three ideas that are essential to cooperation in the Human race, only three limits that ought to be placed on self interest that actually increase the productive powers of self interest: the rights to life, liberty, and property. In the 1700s the Scots thought up something great. They theorized that by making the economy (the method in which humans interact with material goods) equivalent to the state of nature they could use this most inherent of human characteristics to increase productivity and raise the standard of living for all. In this capitalist system, the strong and smart would prevail while the weak and timid fail.
We are nearly scared to death of Capitalism. If our banks fail, we die, apparantly. What we don't realize is this failure is the very thing that makes capitalism work! If life is one large learning experience, then mistakes are good for our future. If we do not fail, there can be no progress. The system that we have obviously is not perfect. By bailing out these large financial institutions we are preserving an imperfect system so as to not take that leap of innovation and adaptation. The only real way to influence business is to show that it is unprofitable to engage in a course of action. By bailing out the large financial institutions we are negating that effect. If we truly are capitalist we should stop acting in this manner.
If we are not capitalist, then we should stop teaching it in schools and stop proclaiming it to the world. Capitalism allowed a Nation to rise in this land. It allowed immigrants a place where their hard work was not co-opted by another's interest. It gave them the opportunity to act in a self interested way. In fact, the self interest is the only reason they are here in the first place!
There are no barriers in the country, yet we set a dangerous precedent in these recent acts. We now proclaim: We are capitalist untill stormy seas appear on the horizon. That is unacceptable in my eyes. Adapt and survive. Let the weak fall and the strong rise to take their place. These are the laws that govern nature and supposedly our economic theory. Its about time we started looking to it.
as a side note:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21879&news_iv_ctrl=1021
09 November 2008
Can't Take It With You When You Go
Sometimes you to take a step back and rededicate yourself, remind yourself of the reasons that guide your actions. I need it sometimes, for sure. Focus has a way of fading over time. We are temporary creatures at heart it seems. The only thing we can do is have the awareness about ourselves to recognize that we need to refocus every now and then...
03 November 2008
Choose Your Destiny... Flawless Victory... MORTAL KOMBAT
With election day coming up (tomorrow), I would like to take the time to unload upon thee all the shit that has been floating around in my head. First things first... PLEASE VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD. Think about the choices you make. Ask yourself why you feel the way you feel about the issues that matter to you. Don't just say they are important to you, give a reason! Most of the people I have spoken with this last election cycle have no idea why they think the way they think, whether it is a "Barack Obama is a closet Muslim Terrorist gay baby rapist killer" or "I want change in Washington, yes we can" (both statements are equally absurd). Heres what I think of the candidates, and by assuming that I am correct you can feel free to vote accordingly with my views.
John McCain is same old bullshit Rovian politics. He is still trying to hold down the cobbled together neo-con majority that held sway in 2000 and '04. What he fails to realize is the campaign promises of those 8 years were never upheld. Gay Marriage was not made illegal on a national scale, Roe v. Wade was not addressed at all, and the economy went to shit through deficit spending and a war on two fronts. Because of all this baggage, McCain has to hold together these fiscal conservatives, religious nutjobs, and power projectionist hawks without the specter of another 911 to hold these totally non-aligning groups together. He has reverted to the old republican game: make the voters feel like they are pulling for the underdog (even though the party is incumbent...), complain about new taxes and big government (even though the government is huge and spending out of control because of your own party), and pander to the masses not by making intelligent arguments about which policy is best (instead try trotting out a dumbass from fuck-me-in-the-ear-hole ohio who wouldn't know true socialism if it gave him a swift kick in his future kids). Oh, and also call anyone from a metropolitan area un-American. We all know if you don't listen to country or work on a farm or hate black people you are a terrorist. Thanks John McCain, for playing the same bullshit song thats been on for near a decade. And by the way, your "i was tortured" card is revoked due to overuse. As a future serviceman I never thought I could honestly think to myself that I am embarrassed about someone relating what they did for their country. Gott im Himmel, give it a rest please.
Sarah Palin is so incredibly unworthy of thought that she will not be addressed. She is an insult to women everywhere. Talk about a token.
Barack Hussein Obama is not a closet terrorist. He is a domestic liberal whose ideas are clearly stated and thought out. His Upsides are thus: His plans are CLEAR CUT. How can we as a people not thank him enough for this? He has not made character attacks. Its nice to see a guy who wants to debate the issues. However, he is a liberal, meaning he believes that the government can solve many of the problems plaguing America. This i fundamentally disagree with, however at least he doesn't beat around the bush with it. Barack Obama is in favor of the European Socialist economic and social model. It may be whats needed in today's world, but I also disagree with the ideas of raised taxes on those who make more and the like. What I do agree with him is the necessity for government stimulus of the green energy market. That is necessary, and whoever would like to talk about it can meet me outside. The only thing I do not like about him is the idea of Change. Change is bullshit. It is both impossible and impractical. Anytime a candidate runs on the platform of change, what he really means is lets change out the old bullshit and give someone else a chance to ravage the system. It is a necessary evil I guess but one I wish the otherwise very strong candidate would avoid.
Now whose the best of these? Bobb Barr, the Libertarian Candidate. Or maybe Ralph Nader. Or actually, ME. Thats who I'm voting for.
John McCain is same old bullshit Rovian politics. He is still trying to hold down the cobbled together neo-con majority that held sway in 2000 and '04. What he fails to realize is the campaign promises of those 8 years were never upheld. Gay Marriage was not made illegal on a national scale, Roe v. Wade was not addressed at all, and the economy went to shit through deficit spending and a war on two fronts. Because of all this baggage, McCain has to hold together these fiscal conservatives, religious nutjobs, and power projectionist hawks without the specter of another 911 to hold these totally non-aligning groups together. He has reverted to the old republican game: make the voters feel like they are pulling for the underdog (even though the party is incumbent...), complain about new taxes and big government (even though the government is huge and spending out of control because of your own party), and pander to the masses not by making intelligent arguments about which policy is best (instead try trotting out a dumbass from fuck-me-in-the-ear-hole ohio who wouldn't know true socialism if it gave him a swift kick in his future kids). Oh, and also call anyone from a metropolitan area un-American. We all know if you don't listen to country or work on a farm or hate black people you are a terrorist. Thanks John McCain, for playing the same bullshit song thats been on for near a decade. And by the way, your "i was tortured" card is revoked due to overuse. As a future serviceman I never thought I could honestly think to myself that I am embarrassed about someone relating what they did for their country. Gott im Himmel, give it a rest please.
Sarah Palin is so incredibly unworthy of thought that she will not be addressed. She is an insult to women everywhere. Talk about a token.
Barack Hussein Obama is not a closet terrorist. He is a domestic liberal whose ideas are clearly stated and thought out. His Upsides are thus: His plans are CLEAR CUT. How can we as a people not thank him enough for this? He has not made character attacks. Its nice to see a guy who wants to debate the issues. However, he is a liberal, meaning he believes that the government can solve many of the problems plaguing America. This i fundamentally disagree with, however at least he doesn't beat around the bush with it. Barack Obama is in favor of the European Socialist economic and social model. It may be whats needed in today's world, but I also disagree with the ideas of raised taxes on those who make more and the like. What I do agree with him is the necessity for government stimulus of the green energy market. That is necessary, and whoever would like to talk about it can meet me outside. The only thing I do not like about him is the idea of Change. Change is bullshit. It is both impossible and impractical. Anytime a candidate runs on the platform of change, what he really means is lets change out the old bullshit and give someone else a chance to ravage the system. It is a necessary evil I guess but one I wish the otherwise very strong candidate would avoid.
Now whose the best of these? Bobb Barr, the Libertarian Candidate. Or maybe Ralph Nader. Or actually, ME. Thats who I'm voting for.
10 October 2008
Class Warfare
This editorial pretty much sums up why I find it difficult to support republicans. If only they didn't dumb themselves down on purpose... if only...
here
here
05 October 2008
The Values of the Rich
Money and politics seem to be connected at the hip. Hand and hand, if you will. There seems to be a direct contradiction in the belief that political speech is to be unlimited (by the first amendment), and that the rich should not play a more proportional role in the governing of the country. If speech in this country is a function of wealth (you would be foolish to claim that it is not), then in a way political action is also a function of wealth. Therefore, money is political power. C.R.E.A.M. Talking 'bout the money. Dolla dolla bills y'all. However, is this truly a bad thing? This country was founded on the belief that property is one of the basic human rights. An increase in property is an increase in ease of life. If ease of life is deemed desirable, then it follows that collection of property is desirable. If this is a right then cannot be denied, but it is also the fact that this collection is desirable, how is it undesirable that the expression of this basic American right is equated to speech and, indirectly so, political power? If wealth is a function of talent, and all men are guaranteed the right to keep what they make, then is wealth a function of talent and luck, and the expression through politics (guaranteed to all citizens) therefore dependent ultimately on inherent differences in ability, and any distinction based thereof a limit to these basic principles? To limit the influence of money is not to ward against corruption, and any claim otherwise is a limit to personal freedom. If every person in this country is truly free to the right of pursuing happiness(wealth), then there is an equal opportunity to express ones self politically through this money. An argument otherwise is to unfairly limit those who are the beneficiaries of talent on principle, and is against what this country guarantees. It is a basic human right to spend as much as you want. So says the constitution.
10 September 2008
"I feel like..."
I dislike most sentences started in such a way. Out of the Library the other day I happened upon a conversation which had a sentence like that. It went: "I feel like morality is all in our heads, a social imposition and requirement. It really isn't real." Immediately I was thrown back to my freshman year...
I remember thinking something very similar. As a student of history I realized it very early on; morality is a relative creation of the society in which one lives. Moral codes have changed throughout the years and will continue to change as the world around them changes. Morality is, now that I have come to rationalize it, a creation akin to government and religion. In fact these three play off each other frequently. All of these, in my humble opinion, are solid. Real. Definite.
They are definite because in some way, they are based off the land. These all spawn from the need of many to share, in some way, a definite set of resources. The set is bookended with brackets on both sides. Changes in these three basic human constructions reflect changes in environment (or methods to exploit the environment). They exist because someone at some time found it necessary to construct them in order to make life easier. The organization these structures provide created the way of life we lead today.
Recognizing that a system is flawed and relative is only the first step in the thought process. It is the knee jerk reaction when one finds a contradiction in anything. It is akin to the revolutions in art. A fault is found, a gap in logic, and a reaction subscribed to change the establishment. However, as the revolution cools, it becomes logical to once again codify it. In the same way, to recognize that morality is indefinite is only the first step to realizing that it is definite. Once one asks "why was this here in the first place", the answer will lead them to cherish the nature of morality. Organization is, and will continue to be vital for some semblance of survival on any level. God help us when it is no longer needed.
(I LOVE IRONIC STATEMENTS!)
I remember thinking something very similar. As a student of history I realized it very early on; morality is a relative creation of the society in which one lives. Moral codes have changed throughout the years and will continue to change as the world around them changes. Morality is, now that I have come to rationalize it, a creation akin to government and religion. In fact these three play off each other frequently. All of these, in my humble opinion, are solid. Real. Definite.
They are definite because in some way, they are based off the land. These all spawn from the need of many to share, in some way, a definite set of resources. The set is bookended with brackets on both sides. Changes in these three basic human constructions reflect changes in environment (or methods to exploit the environment). They exist because someone at some time found it necessary to construct them in order to make life easier. The organization these structures provide created the way of life we lead today.
Recognizing that a system is flawed and relative is only the first step in the thought process. It is the knee jerk reaction when one finds a contradiction in anything. It is akin to the revolutions in art. A fault is found, a gap in logic, and a reaction subscribed to change the establishment. However, as the revolution cools, it becomes logical to once again codify it. In the same way, to recognize that morality is indefinite is only the first step to realizing that it is definite. Once one asks "why was this here in the first place", the answer will lead them to cherish the nature of morality. Organization is, and will continue to be vital for some semblance of survival on any level. God help us when it is no longer needed.
(I LOVE IRONIC STATEMENTS!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)