|
|
Tuesday, December 13th, 2005
|
|
|
Stanley Tookie Williams III was executed by lethal injection, and pronounced dead at 12:35 this morning. He was the founder of the West Coast Crips, and convicted of killing four individuals, one of whom he apparently killed on the basis of race. From the wikipedia article about Williams: "Williams also said he killed Owens 'because he was white and he was killing all white people.' Coward testified that Williams had bragged about the shooting, stating, 'You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him,' as he made gurgling or growling noises and laughed about Owens’ death."
It has been argued that Williams should have been allowed to live on in prison because he has since renounced his former way of life and published a series of childrens' books condemning gang life. In other words, justice should not be done because Williams changed and is now useful to society. This movement for clemency throws into stark contrast two differing views of justice and the purpose of the penal system.
The first is that in a just and humane society, a just punishment must be administered to criminals. What is or is not a just punishment is not the debate for today, but I will say that I do believe that the death penalty is a just punishment for truly "beyond reasonable doubt" murders. In this view, the utility of the penal system is not considered. Punishment is a means toward a just society, not a means towards bettering society in any way other than making it just.
The second view is that in a just and humane society, the penal system and it's overseers must take into account what's best for society, and appeals to abstract values such as "justice" are secondary at best. We should use the penal system to create a better society, end of story. Proponents of such a system will use arguments such as "The death penalty should be abolished because it does not prevent murders, and with rehabilitation these criminals can become productive members of society."
Let it be stated that one can either be for or against the death penalty in either view, so I'm not trying to turn this into a death penalty debate. A a pro-death penalty holder of the second view might state that the death penalty is justified on the grounds that it removes dangerous elements from society and does not burden that society by keeping those elements alive, thus bettering it. An anti-death penalty holder of the first view might state that the taking of life is unjust under any circumstance, and that two wrongs do not make a right.
It is my opinion that the first view is the better (surprised, aren't you?). First of all, social engineering is impossibly difficult at this point in time, and it probably always will be. There are just too many damn variables. To think that some individuals are in such a high place of power and enlightenment that they may steer society towards a new and better horizon is dangerously authoritarian and illusory. Although I tend to focus on the economic, I oppose all forms of social engineering. There is no captain steering us to safety; there is only the interconnected actions of millions (billions if you look at the global economy). The butterfly effect is best known in atmospheric systems, but it applies to any chaotic system, which includes society. This means that any small disturbance of the system can have huge and unpredictable consequences. When you take the alleged (and in my opinion, likely) factor of free will into account, social engineering takes on frighteningly impossible forms.
But I oppose the second view not simply because I think it won't work. I also oppose it because I believe it negates any real justice. The purpose of law and penalty is to create a just society, because such a society is better to live in than an unjust society. In an unjust society, the moral live in fear and the amoral run amok without fear. To put society's needs above justice makes a society by definition not just, and such a society is not desirable for most people. When the efficacy of penal engineering is hardly well established, such a gamble and its occasional rewards are hardly worth the price of living in an unjust world. Justice itself is the social good that law and penalty provide, and there is no reason to think that dispensing with it will lead to a better world.
Damn, this started off as an anti-memorial to Tookie "Murdering Fuckhead" Williams, and turned into another damn rant. Ah well. If I believed in an afterlife Tookie, I'd tell you to burn in hell.
Peace all.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Tuesday, November 29th, 2005
|
|
|
Sociopath
You are 100% Rational, 14% Extroverted, 57% Brutal, and 71% Arrogant. |
You are the Sociopath! As a result of your cold, calculating rationality, your introversion (and ability to keep quiet), your brutality, and your arrogance, you would make a very cunning serial killer. You care very little for the feelings of others, possibly because you are not a very emotional person. You are also very calculating and intelligent, making you a perfect criminal mastermind. Also, you are a very arrogant person, tending to see yourself as better than others, providing you a strong ability to perceive others as weak little animals, thus making it easier to kill them. In short, your personality defect is the fact that you could easily be a sociopath, because you are calculating, unemotional, brutal, and arrogant. Please don't kill me for writing mean things about you!
To put it less negatively:
1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive.
2. You are more INTROVERTED than extroverted.
3. You are more BRUTAL than gentle.
4. You are more ARROGANT than humble.
Compatibility:
Your exact opposite is the Hippie.
Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Spiteful Loner, the Smartass, and the Capitalist Pig.
*
*
If you scored near fifty percent for a certain trait (42%-58%), you could very well go either way. For example, someone with 42% Extroversion is slightly leaning towards being an introvert, but is close enough to being an extrovert to be classified that way as well. Below is a list of the other personality types so that you can determine which other possible categories you may fill if you scored near fifty percent for certain traits.
The other personality types:
The Emo Kid: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Starving Artist: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Bitch-Slap: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Brute: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Hippie: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Televangelist: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Schoolyard Bully: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Class Clown: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Robot: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Haughty Intellectual: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Spiteful Loner: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Sociopath: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Hand-Raiser: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Braggart: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Capitalist Pig: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Smartass: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant. |
 |
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
You scored higher than 91% on Rationality |
|
You scored higher than 12% on Extroversion |
|
You scored higher than 69% on Brutality |
|
You scored higher than 81% on Arrogance |
|
|
|
Comments: Read 3 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, November 16th, 2005
|
|
|
George desires some explanation, and I'll just post what he said so I don't have to keep two windows open:
"... I was just wondering if you would elaborate on non freedom of opportunity. I dont see it from my non thought out stance as being identical to the "more economic equality" standpoint. Or maybe a better way to describe an ideal way of life is freedom of opportunity. At least freedom to do what it takes to get to the next level by any means you choose whether it be loans or help from relatives. I definitely agree we should not be homogeneous. Being homogeneous in any from seems like a hideous reality."
Equality of oppurtunity must be opposed on both moral and philosophical by any strong classical liberal (or in modern political jargon, "libertarian"). First, in order to enact things like public education, welfare, nationalized health care, etc., one must forcibly take someone else's property to fund such ventures. Most people know such coercion as stealing, but when a state does it, it is called "taxation." Since anyone who believes in strong property rights is by default against stealing, this is why we must be against such actions from a moral standpoint. It's really as simple as that.
From a more practical point of view, equality of opportunity is more difficult to combat. It basically comes down to "Where do we draw the line, and what is the justification for drawing it there?" Basically, like those who like the idea of economic equality, but aren't willing to take it to its logical conclusion, espousers of equality of opportunity must arbitrarily choose how much equality is enough. The skeptical reader can see the slippery slope of such a philosophy. There will always be someone who wants to draw the line a little closer to hell, until the good intentions of the original equalizers fuck society over.
What you're describing above seems to be strong property rights to me. One is free to do with his property as he wills as long as he isn't infringing on another's rights. You don't have a right to loans or help from relatives, and thus, you aren't "free" to get them anytime you want. But you are free to take the steps necessary to impress loaners and relatives enough to convince them to loan you money. True equality of opportunity would suggest that it is your right to have access to whatever someone else had access to no matter what. Obviously, such an equality would be little better than absolute equality of result.
Equality under the law is the only type of equality a classical liberal should espouse. Now, leftists don't like equality under the law for a few reasons. The main one is that they no longer get to abuse the wealthy to their heart's content. The progressive income tax, the estate tax, etc., would immediately be gone, because they treat the wealthy differently than the poor. Unions would no longer get the backing of the law (and would be effectively powerless). Affirmative action would be gone. In short, all of the groups that get preferential discrimination from leftists would no longer receive that aid. This would apply to conservatives as well (no more corporate subsidies, Halliburton and millionaire farmers), but conservatives have far fewer pet groups than leftists, so they wouldn't be as upset about it. It's my belief that equality under the law and a seperation of economy and state are essentially the same, but don't take my word for it, since I just now thought of that.
But yeah, hopefully I answered your question. I'm not so sure I did, but whatev.
Peace out all.
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Saturday, November 12th, 2005
|
|
|
Those tire tracks
zigzag your torso like a Devil's self portrait.
The car accident, the skin graft treatment, the flower baskets,
the wincing relatives...
you bid her farewell then got in your car
and that's the last thing that you can recall.
and when they pulled you out
you didn't know your name
exploding semi truck blurred your face with flame...
you met Jane four years ago today
dancing at some vomit-stained frat party.
Her newspaper gown, flashing headline brown, her violent gypsy dance,
her tired underpants...
Love
rhymes with pity now
Love
rhymes with sympathy now
Jane let you touch and feel her
she was so free like a pineapple in a tree
You said it's dangerous
to be so intimate
You know it's dangerous, dangerous, dangerous.
Jane said when she laid on her back
the sun hit her body like an ugly landscape.
But some things never get better
like used cars and bad livers.
So you traded her in for a better looking brand.
One with fake porno tits
a pad lock on her lips
disposable tan
biodegradable hands.
Back at the hospital
you got no visitors at all.
She visits you in your sleep,
but that newspaper gown is always on fire
She met him a week after you left her
when you tossed out her touch to the garbage collector.
He talked her out of her skirt in his beer-soaked apartment
and then they did all the things
you never said that you wanted.
And the sirens are laughing underneath your skull.
And your thoughts are turning dull, callous and cold.
Yesterday you gave your burden a name.
Yesterday you gave your burden a face.
But your burden it looks a lot like her.
Love
rhymes with pity now
Love
rhymes with sympathy now
I heart the Blood Brothers...
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Friday, November 11th, 2005
|
|
|
When one takes high school government (or any upper level course which touches on politics), one is introduced to a more rigorous (although definitely intensely so) definition of the two major political groupings in America: the liberal, and the conservative. The liberal, we are told, is more in favor of "social freedoms" than a conservative, while a conservative is more in favor of "economic freedoms" than a liberal. A complimentary definition is that a conservative is more concerned with individual liberty than social equality, while the opposite is true of a liberal. I'm not even going to touch on the inadequateness of this one-dimensional model of political belief. What I'm concerned with right now is this concept, "equality."
Equality has been at the center of the political debate for about 200 years. The phrase, "All men are created equal," is featured prominently in the first sentence of America's favorite work of sedition, the Declaration of Independence. Equality is the main goal of the radical Left, be they Socialist, Communist, or Anarchist. That equality among all people is a good thing is taken as a given in these circles; only the degree to which men (I'm using "men" as a word for "humanity" here, because it's accepted and requires less work)are equal, and the methods of bringing about this equality are debated.
My contention is that equality among men is one of the most worthless, irrational, and emotionally motivated ideals in the air. This includes equality of result and it's more attractive little brother, equality of oppurtunity (not, however, equality under the law).
First, and easiest to refute, is the ideal of equality of result. The logical conclusion of this ideal is a world in which there are absolutely no differences between anyone at all. The intelligent must be lobotimized so as not to be unequal to the dull, the athletic must be barred from exercise, the fat starved or the skinny force-fed, etc. Needless to say, no one espouses a world like this. Equalizers of result will tell you one of two things: either "I only desire equality when it comes to a everyones' material wellbeing," or, far more commonly, "I only want to make the world more economically equal." Since the first one leads to absurdity fairly easily (will diabetics be disallowed some other good due to insulin consumption?), I'm only going to deal with the second.
It's not uncommon to hear someone lament that the world isn't "more equal." Hell, you might even espouse such a belief. The problem with this thinking is how one decides on the optimum level of equality. It is necessarily an arbitrary choice, based on every single equalizer's personal opinion. This is hardly a rational and acceptable base from which someone should shove their beliefs down the throat-hole of domestic policy, and yet this happens all of the time. So until a method for deriving optimum equality comes about, the only basis an equalizer has for his or her beliefs is emotion and opinion. In other words, it is an irrational basis. It is based on the person's subjective sense of what is right, and then this person makes the fundamentalist's mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't see things their way is heartless and not worth considering when creating government policy.
"Well that's fine. But I don't believe in equality of result," says the cleverer equalizer. "I believe in equality of opportunity. Indeed, I'm not sure why you, a self-proclaimed capitalist, are against equality of opportunity. It allows the talented to rise in society, regardless of their starting point. This is far better for our economy than allowing talentless rich kids to run the show." This is a subtler stance than earlier. Fortunately for all of us who desire a rational society, this ideal suffers from the exact same problems plaguing our less attractive equality. For example, like equality of result, almost no one desires true equality of opportunity. One would have to take all newborns from their parents and raise them all in the exact same way, under the exact same conditions. Also, one would have to try one's hardest to homogenize the gene pool, a big evolutionary "uh-oh." This is the logical conclusion of equality of opportunity, but again, most equalizers will say, "No no no, I just want more equality of opportunity, that's all." But this argument is identical to the "more economic equality" argument, and it is just as arbitrary and irrational. Such irrationality is a poor basis for public policy.
I didn't really get into the subject as much as I wanted to, but I'm effing hungry. Peace out kiddos.
|
|
Comments: Read 3 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Friday, October 28th, 2005
|
|
|
It's been a while. I got out of the LJ habit when my computer wasn't working for about a month, and I just came to such an ironic twist in perspective that I had to post this.
*Takes a deep breath* Ok, here goes.
I no longer support Wal Mart.
Before presumptions are made, I would like to say that it is because the CEO of Wal Mart recently called for an increase in minimum wage, which is disgusting and deceitful. A good explanation of why it is disgusting and deceitful can be found here: http://www.mises.org/story/1950 .
If you don't like following links, get off the internet. Just joking! If you don't want to follow the link, here's the short version. Wal Mart already pays all of it's workers well over minimum wage. It's competitors generally pay employees less than Wal Mart does (that's how they can compete). By calling for a higher wage floor, Wal Mart is trying to force it's competitors to pay as much as Wal Mart does, which would effectively kill most of the competition. Wal Mart knows that it's traditional critics generally support a higher wage floor, and they also know it's critics won't realize that they're helping Wal Mart reduce total competition by supporting such a wage floor. Thus, it is a disgusting and deceitful call from Wal Mart's CEO.
|
|
Comments: Read 8 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Saturday, July 16th, 2005
|
|
|
Okay, I know I haven't done my Mexico post yet, and I'm sorry... it will happen though.
Tonight, I'm going to offer my take on two political spiels that I have recently come in contact with. The first, a Daily Show debate between Jon Stewart and Bernard Goldberg. The second, a critique of the general criticisms Robert B. Reich lays on "free market fundamentalists" in his book, Reason.
Ok, I know that the general consensus in the room nerd night was that J. Stewart "pwnzorred" Mr. Goldberg that night. I'll grant that, yes, Stewart was definitely able to outperform Goldberg, make funnier comments, and wow the crowd far more (big feat, that one). However, that does not mean that Stewart was at all correct in his criticism of the book.
Although for a while I thought that the most "damning" criticism of the book Stewart had to offer was "Barbara Streisand?!?!?!111," he went on later to bring to bear his objection; "Look, why are you focusing on our culture and the figures therein, when there are all of these shady deals going on in Washington? Celebrities and such have no power, but the people in Washington do" (very very paraphrased). I don't remember if he specifically said it, but he definitely implied that culture has basically no effect on our lives when compared to the government.
Goldberg, lacking preparation, a quick wit, and charisma, basically couldn't answer Stewart's criticism. Which is a damn shame, because,the answer is pretty easy: "Culture affects our lives far more than our government does, leading figures and shapers of culture wield a tremendous amount of power, and quite frankly, Mr. Stewart, I'm appalled at your complete ignorance to suggest that culture is basically meaningless. I want you to ask a sociologist, or a psychologist how deeply we are affected by our culture, and see if they agree with your point of view. Quite frankly, your 'critique' is a red herring. Even if the government is more influential than culture (which is highly debatable), that hardly means we should have no concerns about its degredation."
To defend my response, I'll address some of the ballsier statements (any other concerns readers have that I don't cover can and should be addressed, of course). I believe culture affects our lives far more than government does. 1.) Our government, while not perfect at this part, generally leaves most people alone, except for taxation. This part of the argument, of course, depends on the government. 2.) Culture reaches our minds through our perceptions almost constantly. Especially if one watches t.v., but even if one doesn't, our news, our entertainment, our food, the way we interact with one another, etc. etc. all play a part in our day to day lives, affecting our actions, thoughts, and emotions far more than the lightened wallet that the government leaves us.
The second point I feel I need to defend is our cultural degredation. Stewart said something along the lines that people all throughout history bitched and moaned about how our culture is going down the tubes, and we're still fine. Now, I don't really agree with Goldberg's shock over the commonplace use of vulgarity. Over time, curse words will change into regular language. Sure, I say "fuck" like a fucking sailor, but I look around and feel bad, and actually feel like I'm saying something bad when I utter the word "cunt." I'll bet my grandkids or great-grandkids will be saying it like I say "fuck." I'll probably find it terribly offensive, but I'll also probably remember writing this. However, I do agree with Goldberg that our culture in general is degrading. Our divorce rate, rampant teen pregnancy, degradation of women in pop culture (mostly in that oh-so-eloquent art, gangsta rap), etc., are inarguably harmful to our society. While I may not agree with Goldberg's choices (I'm sure my list would be much more evenly split between the right and the left), I don't think he's wrong to say that our culture is experiencing some harmful changes.
I'm too tired to talk about Reich right now. Tomorrow, then?
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm going to Mexico next week. I'll be back Saturday evening, with pictures and presents and hopefully some kickass stories. Laters kids!
|
|
Comments: Read 4 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
What should be the role of government in society?
I really want to know what everyone thinks.
For myself, the role of the government should be to set up and maintain an environment in which contracts are legally binding and property rights are enforced. That's it.
It's pretty simple, really. As a simple, static system, I do not feel that democracy is the best institution to uphold such a government. Democracy is fickle and dependent on the whims of that great mob. A democratic republic works better, but we have seen throughout our history that it only slows the encroachments of an ever-growing Leviathan.
The 20th century was the century of statism. Every type of market suppressing, authoritarian government was tried. From plain-Jane socialism in Britain, to power worshipping fascism in Italy and Germany, to the perpetual state of stagnation and terror of Stalin's Russia, right back to the soft Keynesian New Deal here in the states, the world ran the gamut. And none of it worked.
Socialism in Britain caused the poverty that led to the Sex Pistols' appeal and Margaret Thatcher's revolution.
The socialism in Germany and Italy naturally led them to a state of perpetual warfare and eventual collapse.
After 70 years, the Soviet Union collapsed, and for the first time, the world was able to see the poverty that resulted from the Bolshevik brand of socialism.
The New Deal is mostly a memory in the United States, but it reminds us of the failures of even moderate socialism through the life support we're having to give Social Security.
Despite all of these forms of socialism, only one country ever carried socialism to it's logical conclusion: the end of markets. Cambodia under Pol Pot was riddled with starvation and state-terrorism on it's people. The number of deaths caused by socialism was staggering.
One wonders where the Left wing gets off by accusing the Right of heinous crimes against humanity. And when I say "Right," I mean the economic Right. We on the Right don't have Russia or Cambodia on our records. Small laissez faire governments weren't responsible for the World Wars.
I'm not saying the economic right has no blotches in history. Pinochet's Chile is a good example. The genocide of American Natives by the United States is another (although most of that was disease related). Neither side is sinless. But in general, market economies do not destroy like socialist economies do, because it is inefficient to destroy. A market weeds out the inefficient; socialism does no such thing, as it is run by bureaucrats divorced from personal responsibility. Socialism holds up the inefficient because of the excuse "We lacked necessarry funds..."
Bill Clinton said "The era of big government is over." I hope to god he was right.
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, June 1st, 2005
|
|
|
Your Political Profile
|
Overall: 70% Conservative, 30% Liberal
|
Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
|
Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
|
Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
|
Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
|
Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
|
Well, some of the questions had bad answers... and it wasn't large enough. But it's not too bad.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, May 18th, 2005
|
|
|
So I just got done watching Team America: World Police, and I must say, it was freaking hilarious. Finding it somewhat odd that Michael Moore was ripped a new asshole in this movie (because of Matt Stone's appearance in BFC and the cartoon after it), I decided to do a little online research. Here's a Conan O'Brien interview I found at moorewatch.com.
Conan: Michael Moore is depicted in this film (Team America) along with a lot of other celebrities. And I talked about it with one of our producers after we saw the movie because you guys sort of go after Michael Moore. And it thought, “That’s surprising,” because Michael Moore was in Bowling for Columbine, it’s his movie, he interviewed you (points to Matt) on Bowling for Columbine and I remember thinking I thought those guys were friends with Michael Moore. Did you have a falling out?
Matt: It wasn’t so much a falling out. He asked me to do the interview for Bowling for Columbine because I grew up in Littleton, Colorado. So I thought, okay, I’ll talk about growing up in Littleton, Colorado. What he did that made us a little angry is he put an animation in right after my piece in Bowling in Columbine that is very South Park-esque in its look. And I think 99% of the people who saw Bowling for Columbine think Trey and I did that animation.
Conan: I thought it was yours until my producer told me that he talked to you guys. I thought that you had done that animation.
Trey: No no. He asked us if we would do an animated thing for him, and we’re like, “You know, we grew up in Colorado, our parents have guns, it’s just, you know, whatever.”
Conan: I’m wearing a gun right now. It’s just accepted. (Audience laughs)
Trey: Yeah exactly. We strongly believe in guns. So then he kind of did it anyway. So then later when he did Fahrenheit 911, people were like, well, Michael Moore kind of lies and manipulates to make people think certain things. We’re, like, personal victims of that. So we basically decided to make him into a puppet and blow him up. (Referring to Team America movie)
Matt: I mean, he didn‚t explicitly say, “Matt and Trey did this animation.” But he made it look like it. And that’s what he does in his movies. He uses two images together and creates meaning where there isn’t none.
Trey: And he’s fat.
You know, I lose respect for Micahel Moore the more I learn about him. Most of the people I knew who saw that animation thought it was done by Trey and Matt. I sure did. And it's that type of misleading that pisses me off about pundits. I fucking hate pundits, and Michael Moore is just a really rich and creative (that's a nice word for it) pundit. Fuck my old heroes. Here's a list of morons I used to love:
Michael Moore
Noam Chomsky
Al Frankton (although I still think he's fucking hilarious)
Ralph Nader
Jello Biafra (I still love the DK's music)
Peter Singer
OK, moron's the wrong word, especially in Chomsky's case (he did revolutionize linguistics...), so I'll expound: morons about politics. Yeah, that's a better phrase. Now, just so I'm not accused of right wing bias (even though I'm not a right-winger), here are some morons I never liked:
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity x 8,000,000
Bill O'Reilly (actually, with O'Reilly, it's a love/hate thing, and it was even when I was a lefty)
Pat Robertson (and every televangelist on earth)
I know I mentioned Sean Hannity eight million times, but I really fucking hate Sean Hannity.
Here are my new heroes:
Ludwig von Mises
Friedrich Hayek
Milton Friedman (and of course, his wife Rose)
Immanuel Kant
Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman are Nobel Laureates (sp.) in economics. Immanuel Kant is Immanuel fucking Kant. And Ludwig von Mises pretty much single-handedly kept free market capitalism alive during the statist early 1900's, and had a direct influence on Hayek as his teacher. Ayn Rand gets an honorable mention, since she's the reason I have the politics I do, but since she called Kant the evilest man ever, she doesn't get full recognition. Bitch.
In conclusion, Team America was fucking hilarious, and people of all political bents can enjoy it if they have a since of humor, because in the great tradition of South Park, it makes fun of everyone ever. Including all the dicks, pussies, and assholes on earth (sorry, movie reference... if you don't see it you'll never understand, muahahahaha!).
P.S. My baby is so cute and huggable.
|
|
Comments: Read 5 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
There is a beauty in the spontaneous order that arises from capitalism. In fact, that beauty is almost spiritual. It, to me, proves that freedom is the natural state of humanity. When we just let others alone to their own affairs, an incredibly complex, organic economy springs forth, full of natural solutions to problems within nature, such as rationing through wrongly maligned price gauging (sp.?). Risk is dealt with by insurance companies. Private charities take care of those less fortunate. It contains so much beauty, regardless of the intent of the participants. The selfish drives of entrepreneurs causes them to lend valuable services to the public that we would all be poorer without. Capitalism, mostly unfettered, is the single most beautiful social construct humans have accomplished.
Unfortunately, capitalism is too successful for it's own good. The rapid rise in standards of living within capitalist coutries drew brought into light social problems that existed before capitalism, but weren't as noticed since most everyone had similar problems. With the creation of a large middle class, the plight of the poor and unfortunate was noticed, and for the first time, cared about. Unfortunately, these social problems, all of which were made less ghastly under capitalism, were actually blamed on the system that raised everyone's standard of living.
In the 19th century, it was taken for granted that if a nation wanted to improve it's wealth and standard of living that it would adopt a mostly laissez faire policy. And it worked for those countries, like Japan under the Meiji restoration. Today, it is taken for granted (falsely) that a nation must restrain capitalism to prosper. And it doesn't work, like it didn't for India, Russia, China, Cambodia, most of South America, and much of Europe, which is hardly the utopia many Leftists make it out to be http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/standard_of_living/.
However, the fact is, we live in a day and age where it is almost a given that a country's government will take a large part in the economy. I view this as artificial. We have "social engineers" (a.k.a., bureaucrats) who are pretentious enough to think they know how to better run someone else's economic affairs than the person in the situation. Even putting pretention aside, government intervention and bureaucracies are notoriously bad at doing what they do.
Society contains equations far too complex for any "engineer" to solve. For a large, diverse society, the only effective (peaceful) unifying force is a free market. Let us be true nature lovers, and realize that capitalism is the most natural way to distribute resources, as it is precisely capitalism that arises when you leave people alone.
|
|
Comments: Read 19 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure everyone who reads this has at the very least a working knowledge of punk rock. It started as a reaction against dinosaur prog rock and society in general, bringing rock n' roll back to it's roots. In it's beginnings, it wasn't very political (unless you honestly consider the Sex Pistols a political band, in which case you're dumber than Sid Vicious). Other than the standard "Fuck off!" given to authority figures, but really, that's more of a frustrative vent than a political statement. Nowadays, punk rock is basically synonomous with the far left, except for a few verbally abused non-believers.
My basic confusion is this: Why does such an individualistic movement, like punk rock, support the exact opposite of individualism, which is collectivism (or socialism)? Bands like the Dead Kennedys and Anti-Flag are explicitly, staunchly, and proudly socialist, while other bands, like Bad Religion and NOFX are very liberal, if not so staunchly socialist. Punk rockers that you meet almost always are left-wingers, and are sometimes even more annoyingly left-wing than hipsters.
Is it because capitalism is the dominant economic theory at the moment that punk rockers despise it so? Is punk rock so dogmatically anti-establishment that it must reject reason in order to retain it's identity? Would punk rockers in the former Soviet Union be staunch capitalists? Would there be bands like "Pro-Flag," "The Living Kennedys," and "Good Religion" in the former Soviet Union?
I don't have the answers to these questions. I simply do not understand the infatuation that underground rock n' roll has for left-wing ideologies. I used to believe in those ideologies, and even when I stopped believing, I still spouted it out for awhile, wondering why I was saying it.
Underground rock needs an ideological dose from the other side, much like a punk rock/indie/hardcore/whatever Rush.
|
|
Comments: Read 8 or Add Your Own.
|
| Time: | 5:04 pm. |
| Music: | The Bloom. |
|
Two new cd's in my collection now. The Birthday Party and Cap'n Jazz. Yay!
Any old-school goth fans will love the Birthday Party (looks at Kat).
If you like Ian MacKaye-ish vocals with indie-ish musical parts, Cap'n Jazz is for you.
Since I like both, they're both for me.
I'm listening to Emma's friends right now though. I like it. Whoever sings has an awesome voice.
I wish I remembered where Drew (my cousin, Drew) kept his music.
I think I would describe my aesthetic tastes as a mixture of plastic rulers, broken downtowns, and quirky people.
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
| Time: | 12:11 pm. |
| Mood: |  contemplative. |
|
Does anyone else meet people who are awesome and then have to seperate from them immediately?
I feel like I discard people carelessly... even if it isn't my fault that school is ending and they're moving far far away. Even when they're coming back, how many of them am I actually going to stay in touch with, despite what I want now? I don't need these people, I can get along fairly well by myself. I like them though. I don't want to be me and lose them again and again like always.
I don't want to be the ghost who haunts groups for a while, forms attachments, and then moves on. I need to learn how to keep my feet on the ground.
I want to see everybody this summer. Everyone I can.
Neo-Hippy:
1. A person who believes in hippy ideals, but does not follow hippy aesthetic.
Neo-"Hippy":
1. A poser who listens to a lot of Jack Johnson and Dave Matthews Band (sorry baby, it's true) and really likes pot. Knows nothing of hippies other than the fact that they like drugs and sex. See "Tool."
Is anyone else tired of the second class? (NOTE: These definitions are not official, and I probably left stuff out, but I think you get the idea) I mean, the first type is kinda weird (they're hippies, duh), but there's nothing wrong with that. Type II Neo-hippies make me want to drill a fucking hole in the part of my brain that gives me the ability to perceive them.
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
Back in the days, people who believed in laissez faire markets and minimal government intrusion were called "liberals." Unfortunately for me, that well-flowing word has shifted meaning here in the U.S. of Ayyy, and I am instead burdened with the aesthetically disgusting "libertarian."
Which is slightly humorous, because the label "libertarian" was originally one used for non-state or minimal state socialists (like the bloody anarchists). Everyone wants their labels back, I think.
"I am no conservative!"
Before I start forcing people to force me into a place on the 1-dimensional political spectrum, I must make it clear that I am no conservative. Modern-day conservatives believe in all sorts of things I vehemently disagree with: corporate welfare, making abortion illegal, keeping drugs illegal, tariffs, corporate welfare, keeping euthanasia illegal, the Patriot Act, massive military spending, corporate welfare, WAR, and last, but not least, corporate welfare.
I mainly "agree" with conservatives on specific economic problems, not because I agree with the methods they propose, but because their economics are better than the alternative's economics. It's a matter of degree, not of principle. When it comes to freeing up the market, conservatives never go nearly far enough, in my opinion.
When it comes to social issues, I'm pretty much on the opposite side of the fence of most conservatives, not-withstanding the notable exceptions of gun control and the death penalty (the death penalty when applied to not-insane-or-mentally-handicapped adults).
I think anyone who reads this knows that I'm obviously not a liberal (not in that ther dang ol' new-fangled sense o' da werd). My main disagreements with liberals are over economics and the role of government in our lives. I love liberals, most of my friends are liberals, hell, I used to be what was probably more liberal than anyone I know. I just don't agree anymore.
Anyway, it's entirely too late for this jibba-jabba. Night night all.
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
The goal of a labor union is to raise the price of (union) labor in a company. It attempts this through a number of means, mainly violence to people and property. Despite popular opinion, labor unions do not attempt to help out the working class. They seek to turn a small number of working class into middle class workers, while leaving the majority of working class in a worse position than they initially were in.
The first sentence can hardly be disputed. That is the definitive goal of a labor union. Now, there are three effective ways to arbitrarily raise the value of a good or service (these are the functions of a cartel, an economic analysis of which applies to trade unions completely). First, through a local monopoly of power, one can artificially fix the price as higher than the supply and demand price. Second, one may restrict the supply, in this case by making sure only skilled laborers are allowed to work (historically for unions, it has been this and racism that has limited labor supply). Third, one limits competition by institutionalizing the organization, through combinations of state support and usually violence.
Obviously that's some nasty business unions are involved in. My main problems with labor unions are these:
1. Labor Unions are bad for the economy.
Unions cause unemployment in less skilled workers by raising the the actual wages of a small number by an astronomical amount. This is obviously a form of elitism and is hardly good for the lowest class of worker.
2. Labor Unions are only effective when based on violence.
This one is easy. Unions traditionally destroy the property of the owners, attack workers hired during strikes (commonly known as "scabs"), and may sometimes attack the owners themselves. I myself am a pacifist unless absolutely necesarry. I do not believe violence solves anything, and should only be used in life or death situations.
If unions should be allowed to commit violent acts on their employer's property, employers should have the right to commit violent acts on union members' property. If a union member commits a violent act on other persons, persons opposed to the union should have the right to commit violent acts on the union members. This is merely reciprical violence, and is in no way nearly as evil as the original act done by the union workers.
If unions do not have violence or state backing, they are essentially useless. This is why strikes before unions were officially backed by the federal government were always violent.
3. Unions have traditionally been involved with organized crime.
While a lesser problem in my opinion, it does illustrate the nature of the organization. A cartel is a cartel is a cartel, no matter what form of cartel it may take.
From www.mises.org, "In a study published jointly in late 2002 by the National Legal and Policy Center and the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy, economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone.
That is not a misprint. "The deadweight economic losses are not one-shot impacts on the economy," the study explains. "What our simulations reveal is the powerful effect of the compounding over more than half a century of what appears at first to be small annual effects." Not surprisingly, the study did find that unionized labor earned wages 15 percent higher than those of their nonunion counterparts, but it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism."
From the same article (found at http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1685): "Labor historians and activists would doubtless be at a loss to explain why, at a time when unionism was numerically negligible (a whopping three percent of the American labor force was unionized by 1900) and federal regulation all but nonexistent, real wages in manufacturing climbed an incredible 50 percent in the United States from 1860-1890, and another 37 percent from 1890-1914, or why American workers were so much better off than their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe. Most of them seem to cope with these inconvenient facts by neglecting to mention them at all."
We suffer so many myths about economic practices. Hopefully I've helped to dispel this one in your minds today.
|
|
Comments: Read 3 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Thursday, April 28th, 2005
|
|
|
"I count the days to find
What was left behind
Only these names I clutch
Will lead me to my home
Somehow this river marks
A wrinkle hand in mine
And everyday that parts
The water into two
Mothers and feathers start
To drown the living proof
I can’t remember these lakes of blood
Wrapped in a blanket
There sweats a cut"
What a beautiful way to signal the beginning of a man's search for his biological parents. God bless The Mars Volta.
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
|
my gf is the cutest ever and i won't share her with the andrew.
|
|
Comments: Read 11 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
therapyneeded's journal
energetic.
excited.
tired.