It seems we basically have one sort of atheism alive and well today. That secular humanism which is, for all intents and purposes, basically identical to most popular religions with the exceptions of its cosmology. Perhaps theres less crisis regarding homosexuality, but the trope 'i'm okay, you're okay' morality is still there.
But this is not a discussion on ethics, its aabout atheism...with a capital A. At the core of modern popular atheism is that materialistic belief, if I cannot sense it (or scientifically" intereact with it, it does not exist. Now, an atheist need not subscribe to scientific realism, nor even materialism entirely, but certainly they must (or do, rather) believe that to believe in anything which cannot be demonstrated is stupid. Now, we do have a sort of weak religious belief here, because inhrent in all this is the unspoken rule that if God confronted an atheist, the atheist would be forced to acknowledge God's existence (ignoring the fac tthat the atheist may deem himself insane first.
But that is not the atheism that that interests me. I want a truly religious atheism, one that is not merely cosmologically bound, but morally bound, to ignore God's existence, nay, to deny it, even if that God presents himself. If I knew for certain that God exists, I would still adopt my Atheism in pure defiance; and note that this is not a sort of lazy defiance, or absured refusal to acknowledge that I was wrong about God's existence. No, its a moral imperative which states that i will not be encumbered by moral norms set upon me by another power, no matter how infinite or powerful it might be. In this way, it is a sort of reverse humanism; it shockingly denies an objective or obviously human good in favor of the heroic morality of the individual.
More later
Friday, December 10, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
There is no Main Street
We've heard it. We have to keep an eye on Wall Street and Main Street. If you have no local economy, and by that I mean locally owned and operated businesses, then you have no Main Street. Your "Main Street" is tied to Wall Street if it consists only of large, national and/or international business; you cannot hope for it to act like Main Street, cannot expect it to act for the best local interests when it is fettered externally. The masters of your local economy--which means your masters--do not live near you.
They do not care about you.
They care about Wall Street.
There is no Main Street.
Not if there is no locally owned and operated business.
They do not care about you.
They care about Wall Street.
There is no Main Street.
Not if there is no locally owned and operated business.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Creature that Tells Stories
Language has made our species strange. So long as you accept as fact that mankind is somehow divinely created (and we all know atheists who think as much), our ability to tell stories doesn't seem so strange. When you think about evolution though; holy cow that's weird. Here we've managed to become capable of creating a complex language; not just body signals or the ability to emote, but a way to convey abstract ideas. Now, why would we really need those? Well, I don't know; you can't exactly explain everything away with evolution, ya know, and who'd want to anyway?
The stories we tell aren't just communications..."I found food over by that river, but watch out for the piranha"...we convey more than just facts, we convey value.
A pack of wolves, a group of chimps, what's important to them? Who's the boss. Who has the power. That's what. Now, if I'm a bottom rung chimp, and I find that I don't get the food that's coming to me, because the head chimp is a bully, hardly a leader at all, maybe I will get so pissed off that I'll go ape shit on him. But probably not; probably I'll just yield because that's the way we're built. He's at the top; he calls the shots.
Really, that's not so different than a lot of people, I think. They seem to relish in giving more and more to people who already have power over them. Don't ask me why, because it seems to fly in the face of story telling, because the root of every good story is an appeal to justice. And don't we spend an inordinate amount of time discussing justice? Everything we talk about has to do with whether I got what is coming to me or whether some undeserving jackass is causing me grief. No matter how banal it might be, that's the story we tell.
How about this. Those chimps and wolves relationships are all about power relations. Well, our stories allow us to lie about power relations...to ourselves. Why be racist? What does that do for us? Its a lie, for power. Even if my life is crap, I can lie to myself; I'm not inferior (even if I am) because I belong to a superior race. Why do you think the Nazis were successful?
The stories we tell aren't just communications..."I found food over by that river, but watch out for the piranha"...we convey more than just facts, we convey value.
A pack of wolves, a group of chimps, what's important to them? Who's the boss. Who has the power. That's what. Now, if I'm a bottom rung chimp, and I find that I don't get the food that's coming to me, because the head chimp is a bully, hardly a leader at all, maybe I will get so pissed off that I'll go ape shit on him. But probably not; probably I'll just yield because that's the way we're built. He's at the top; he calls the shots.
Really, that's not so different than a lot of people, I think. They seem to relish in giving more and more to people who already have power over them. Don't ask me why, because it seems to fly in the face of story telling, because the root of every good story is an appeal to justice. And don't we spend an inordinate amount of time discussing justice? Everything we talk about has to do with whether I got what is coming to me or whether some undeserving jackass is causing me grief. No matter how banal it might be, that's the story we tell.
How about this. Those chimps and wolves relationships are all about power relations. Well, our stories allow us to lie about power relations...to ourselves. Why be racist? What does that do for us? Its a lie, for power. Even if my life is crap, I can lie to myself; I'm not inferior (even if I am) because I belong to a superior race. Why do you think the Nazis were successful?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Earning
This is as yet an incomplete thought.
I've heard a few times, both in person and on various media outlets, some person, or persons reciting, as a sort of rallying cry, "I earned what I have." This is a sort of response that comes up from the right when confronted with the threat of redistributive taxation, etc.
Earning is a funny word. It has multiple meanings; the meanings can basically be divided into two groups and then a third which would seem (perhaps deceptively) to be in the middle. On the one hand we have the monetary sense, in which earning simply means an increase in money, for instance, an account earns interest. On the other, we have 'earn' as being used as meriting or deserving reward.
Now, when somebody is said to have earned a wage, or to have earned a living, there is some odd juxtaposing between these two broader meanings of the word earned. This came to mind awhile back when a friend of my family vehemently denounced Obama and his redistributive policies, stating that he had earned what he had. So here is a funny thing; on the one hand, there is no denying that he 'earned' it, in the fully monetary sense. He rendered a service and was given compensation for it. On the other hand, he is saying, basically, that what he has received (purportedly, all of it) he deserves.
The frightening conclusion (to my mind) is that the economy, apparently, decides on its own what people deserve. Given the recent rise in 'market fundamentalism' as a general philosophy, it is no more surprising than it is disturbing. Taken to its extreme, it basically says that a free market economy will always decide what people deserve. Given this belief, it is no wonder why all taxation would be decried as an injustice.
Also falling out of this belief of 'earning' is the oddity of what we might call uneven markets. So, for instance, if 'earning/deserving' is based upon how hard you have worked, one might ask why it is that you have more than, say, your ancestors. Do you work so much harder than your forefathers that you deserve all the amenities of modern society while they did not? The truth is, if any earning has been done, then it was done for us, in the past, by our predecessors. God knows that I do not do enough work today to have built this house, with its air conditioning, its television set, a modern oven, indoor plumbing, etc., and I dare to say that no man living today can in good conscience say that he has (though I'd wager that many would say just that).
Here is the third way in which the phrase, "I earned it," is odd to me. It requires others. If you go into the woods, hunt for your own food, build your own shelter, do everything for yourself through the good will of Nature, then there is not really a proper way in which you can say you 'earned' what you have. On the contrary, you did not earn your hovel, or your dinner, or anything else that you have, you created it yourself from whatever the land has provided for you. In this sense, where you did not 'earn' your house, because you actually built your house, we are actually precisely closest to seeing what a person, by his own work, by his own two hands, merits.
And yet since we are social creatures, capable of sharing work, of sharing burdens, we can have a much easier existence than we can have on our own. Thus it is only in a social context, where you actually receive more than you possibly could have created on your own, that we can speak of earning, deserving a certain place in that society based upon how much we have put into it. Considering the chaos of a free market, the fact that much of what we have today is thanks to the hard work of others from the past, and still from others today who work very hard for very little pay, thanks to quirks in our monetary system or simple exploitation of workers, we really cannot say we have 'earned' what we have when others who work as hard, or harder than we do, have much less.
To recap, if somebody says "I earned this," we cannot immediately jump to "I deserve this." If there is to be a social or moral dimension to the word earn, which is implied by the use of the phrase, then social merit, as opposed to cold market science, must be considered, and therefore, redistribution must be considered as a possible correction to the injustice of uneven earnings.
I've heard a few times, both in person and on various media outlets, some person, or persons reciting, as a sort of rallying cry, "I earned what I have." This is a sort of response that comes up from the right when confronted with the threat of redistributive taxation, etc.
Earning is a funny word. It has multiple meanings; the meanings can basically be divided into two groups and then a third which would seem (perhaps deceptively) to be in the middle. On the one hand we have the monetary sense, in which earning simply means an increase in money, for instance, an account earns interest. On the other, we have 'earn' as being used as meriting or deserving reward.
Now, when somebody is said to have earned a wage, or to have earned a living, there is some odd juxtaposing between these two broader meanings of the word earned. This came to mind awhile back when a friend of my family vehemently denounced Obama and his redistributive policies, stating that he had earned what he had. So here is a funny thing; on the one hand, there is no denying that he 'earned' it, in the fully monetary sense. He rendered a service and was given compensation for it. On the other hand, he is saying, basically, that what he has received (purportedly, all of it) he deserves.
The frightening conclusion (to my mind) is that the economy, apparently, decides on its own what people deserve. Given the recent rise in 'market fundamentalism' as a general philosophy, it is no more surprising than it is disturbing. Taken to its extreme, it basically says that a free market economy will always decide what people deserve. Given this belief, it is no wonder why all taxation would be decried as an injustice.
Also falling out of this belief of 'earning' is the oddity of what we might call uneven markets. So, for instance, if 'earning/deserving' is based upon how hard you have worked, one might ask why it is that you have more than, say, your ancestors. Do you work so much harder than your forefathers that you deserve all the amenities of modern society while they did not? The truth is, if any earning has been done, then it was done for us, in the past, by our predecessors. God knows that I do not do enough work today to have built this house, with its air conditioning, its television set, a modern oven, indoor plumbing, etc., and I dare to say that no man living today can in good conscience say that he has (though I'd wager that many would say just that).
Here is the third way in which the phrase, "I earned it," is odd to me. It requires others. If you go into the woods, hunt for your own food, build your own shelter, do everything for yourself through the good will of Nature, then there is not really a proper way in which you can say you 'earned' what you have. On the contrary, you did not earn your hovel, or your dinner, or anything else that you have, you created it yourself from whatever the land has provided for you. In this sense, where you did not 'earn' your house, because you actually built your house, we are actually precisely closest to seeing what a person, by his own work, by his own two hands, merits.
And yet since we are social creatures, capable of sharing work, of sharing burdens, we can have a much easier existence than we can have on our own. Thus it is only in a social context, where you actually receive more than you possibly could have created on your own, that we can speak of earning, deserving a certain place in that society based upon how much we have put into it. Considering the chaos of a free market, the fact that much of what we have today is thanks to the hard work of others from the past, and still from others today who work very hard for very little pay, thanks to quirks in our monetary system or simple exploitation of workers, we really cannot say we have 'earned' what we have when others who work as hard, or harder than we do, have much less.
To recap, if somebody says "I earned this," we cannot immediately jump to "I deserve this." If there is to be a social or moral dimension to the word earn, which is implied by the use of the phrase, then social merit, as opposed to cold market science, must be considered, and therefore, redistribution must be considered as a possible correction to the injustice of uneven earnings.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Capitalism dies, says Iran
Ahmadinejad Say Capitalism Dying
So, I thought to say that you really can't blame an ideology, but if you have an ideology which at its core is based upon the dominance of a few with money, which is an ideal I think a lot of proponents of capitalism would endorse today, then you're going to get out exactly what you would expect to get out. Of course, capitalism is a tricky term. A lot of people use it interchangeably with 'free market' economics, but that's not necessarily how you have to think about it. I could imagine a free market economy without capitalism; the most obvious example is an economy that has no monetary system. I suppose it all comes down to how you want to define things, but since you can have a free market without money, but not capitalism without money, I really don't think you can in any way use the terms interchangeably.
I think capitalism must die, because it has become...well, it is perhaps the one thing in the world which has actually become 'more and more like itself.' Modern capitalism is less an economic system than it is a religion, and I think the echoes of Marx's 'commodity fetishism' are obvious here. People actually believe that if you just have this 'capitalistic system' whatever that entails, then things will judiciously work themselves out. There's just no reason to believe that; its a faith statement. You might as well suggest we not have laws because ethics will work itself out naturally (if people start killing each other, the ethics market will immediately and naturally punish them).
I'll comment on this some more later maybe.
So, I thought to say that you really can't blame an ideology, but if you have an ideology which at its core is based upon the dominance of a few with money, which is an ideal I think a lot of proponents of capitalism would endorse today, then you're going to get out exactly what you would expect to get out. Of course, capitalism is a tricky term. A lot of people use it interchangeably with 'free market' economics, but that's not necessarily how you have to think about it. I could imagine a free market economy without capitalism; the most obvious example is an economy that has no monetary system. I suppose it all comes down to how you want to define things, but since you can have a free market without money, but not capitalism without money, I really don't think you can in any way use the terms interchangeably.
I think capitalism must die, because it has become...well, it is perhaps the one thing in the world which has actually become 'more and more like itself.' Modern capitalism is less an economic system than it is a religion, and I think the echoes of Marx's 'commodity fetishism' are obvious here. People actually believe that if you just have this 'capitalistic system' whatever that entails, then things will judiciously work themselves out. There's just no reason to believe that; its a faith statement. You might as well suggest we not have laws because ethics will work itself out naturally (if people start killing each other, the ethics market will immediately and naturally punish them).
I'll comment on this some more later maybe.
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Awful Power of Belief
Don't laugh (Mando).
Because yesterday I looked at a Yahoo article (a particularly lame one) and then even scrolled down far enough to see the first comment.
The comment basically was a long, single sentence rant of epic racism, telling 'ethnics' to wake up and start behaving like the good part of the world. It pointed out how in Africa and the Middle East its just kill, kill, kill, but here in the white west, we are peaceful, and our 'oppressiveness' is nothing compared to the oppression that 'ethnics' heap upon one another.
I don't want to talk about the comment itself. But it got me thinking. Why would a person go to the trouble of leaving such an unconvincing rant? Why do people have such strong beliefs about the superiority of their race that they actually write such things and even act upon them?
I thought for a moment, and the answer came to me that it is like Nietzsche said. We aren't in it to be happy; a search for happiness does not motivate us. We just want power. When I 'oppress' you for your color, or at the least, extol my own race, it is my own petty way of giving myself a power.
I pursued this train of thought, and I remembered how the night before a friend of mine, cornered by the majority opinion of my other friends, actually began to exhibit a 'fight or flight' response. I think we have all felt it. When our beliefs are attacked, we get a tightness in our chests, our breathing increases, our minds close. Sometimes we even react violently to hear our strong beliefs challenged.
It may be as simple as that we interpret such attacks somehow as physical attacks; certainly, having several people around you telling you you are wrong about something is not unlike being attacked or provoked; one can imagine monkeys in a forest hooting at each other before violence ensues.
When somebody challenges your beliefs, they are also challenging your identity. When we are talking about racial groups, and our place in them, we are also talking about identity. What is this thing about identity which is so touchy that merely questioning it can send us into a rage? From a behavioral anthropological point of view, I would guess it has something to do with group dynamics. You gain power through your associations, so naturally you wish to empower those same associations.
But we're talking about belief here, right?
Serendipitously, I stumbled upon this interesting RSA animation on empathy. According to this we are 'soft wired' not for selfish survival, but for empathic responses, for being sociable, friendly. We desire to preserve and support the group; when our beliefs are challenged, the belief in our group is therefore challenged, albeit indirectly. Could it be that through sub-conscious intellection we make that connection, and that this is what leads to such a visceral response?
As I was watching the video, I also could not help but think of flaws in his position. If we all have empathic responses, then how come we can joyously watch an execution? But, of course, we have learned not to, at least in some parts of the world. There is also the objectification of the person who has committed crimes; it is as though we remove them from our social group, and therefore feel no more empathy toward them. Thus, whatever we do to them, it is not as though we are doing it to a 'person'.
There is also the obvious divisiveness of religion and other broader social groups. Suddenly, though before I would have empathized with my family and neighbor, now I see those with the same religion as my kin at the exclusion of my blood relations and neighbors.
This is no doubt why politicians spend so much time talking about who they are, and what they purportedly represent rather than about real issues or the actual changes they intend to make. We trust them because they have the same beliefs as us, and therefore we see them as being in the same group as we are; so we give them unearned trust. What is this awful belief that is so mingled with the primitive parts of our brain that makes us act so irrationally? Why would we trust a stranger based, not on how he acts, but on what he believes? Why is belief and not the proper application of belief the measure by which we judge others? Its not enough to just say it is wrong, or that people who do so are dumb, we 'all' do it! It seems to be something deeply wired into us, and yet our intellect creates the beliefs, supposedly understands us, so what is the tie between the intellect and our bestial minds?
Even Jesus excoriated us for this sort of behavior and told us that we would be judged based on what we do. Remember the sheep and the goats? Remember the Samaritan? Its supposed to be all about how we act, how we empathize, not what we believe. But why does the other come so naturally, when it seems like the less natural thing to do?
Because yesterday I looked at a Yahoo article (a particularly lame one) and then even scrolled down far enough to see the first comment.
The comment basically was a long, single sentence rant of epic racism, telling 'ethnics' to wake up and start behaving like the good part of the world. It pointed out how in Africa and the Middle East its just kill, kill, kill, but here in the white west, we are peaceful, and our 'oppressiveness' is nothing compared to the oppression that 'ethnics' heap upon one another.
I don't want to talk about the comment itself. But it got me thinking. Why would a person go to the trouble of leaving such an unconvincing rant? Why do people have such strong beliefs about the superiority of their race that they actually write such things and even act upon them?
I thought for a moment, and the answer came to me that it is like Nietzsche said. We aren't in it to be happy; a search for happiness does not motivate us. We just want power. When I 'oppress' you for your color, or at the least, extol my own race, it is my own petty way of giving myself a power.
I pursued this train of thought, and I remembered how the night before a friend of mine, cornered by the majority opinion of my other friends, actually began to exhibit a 'fight or flight' response. I think we have all felt it. When our beliefs are attacked, we get a tightness in our chests, our breathing increases, our minds close. Sometimes we even react violently to hear our strong beliefs challenged.
It may be as simple as that we interpret such attacks somehow as physical attacks; certainly, having several people around you telling you you are wrong about something is not unlike being attacked or provoked; one can imagine monkeys in a forest hooting at each other before violence ensues.
When somebody challenges your beliefs, they are also challenging your identity. When we are talking about racial groups, and our place in them, we are also talking about identity. What is this thing about identity which is so touchy that merely questioning it can send us into a rage? From a behavioral anthropological point of view, I would guess it has something to do with group dynamics. You gain power through your associations, so naturally you wish to empower those same associations.
But we're talking about belief here, right?
Serendipitously, I stumbled upon this interesting RSA animation on empathy. According to this we are 'soft wired' not for selfish survival, but for empathic responses, for being sociable, friendly. We desire to preserve and support the group; when our beliefs are challenged, the belief in our group is therefore challenged, albeit indirectly. Could it be that through sub-conscious intellection we make that connection, and that this is what leads to such a visceral response?
As I was watching the video, I also could not help but think of flaws in his position. If we all have empathic responses, then how come we can joyously watch an execution? But, of course, we have learned not to, at least in some parts of the world. There is also the objectification of the person who has committed crimes; it is as though we remove them from our social group, and therefore feel no more empathy toward them. Thus, whatever we do to them, it is not as though we are doing it to a 'person'.
There is also the obvious divisiveness of religion and other broader social groups. Suddenly, though before I would have empathized with my family and neighbor, now I see those with the same religion as my kin at the exclusion of my blood relations and neighbors.
This is no doubt why politicians spend so much time talking about who they are, and what they purportedly represent rather than about real issues or the actual changes they intend to make. We trust them because they have the same beliefs as us, and therefore we see them as being in the same group as we are; so we give them unearned trust. What is this awful belief that is so mingled with the primitive parts of our brain that makes us act so irrationally? Why would we trust a stranger based, not on how he acts, but on what he believes? Why is belief and not the proper application of belief the measure by which we judge others? Its not enough to just say it is wrong, or that people who do so are dumb, we 'all' do it! It seems to be something deeply wired into us, and yet our intellect creates the beliefs, supposedly understands us, so what is the tie between the intellect and our bestial minds?
Even Jesus excoriated us for this sort of behavior and told us that we would be judged based on what we do. Remember the sheep and the goats? Remember the Samaritan? Its supposed to be all about how we act, how we empathize, not what we believe. But why does the other come so naturally, when it seems like the less natural thing to do?
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
8/17/10
I spent some time in the Travis County Commissioner's court this morning.
Of greatest import was a justified complaint from a woman who owns and operates a farm in West Travis County along with several other families. At present, plans are in the works to surround their property on three sides with privately owned solar farms.
The immediate, primary material concern is the rising of ambient temperatures surrounding the solar farm by around 20 degrees. The deleterious effects of this temperature change on farming and on general livability cannot be overstated.
Of yet more pressing import is the fact that the County Commissioners, the proper representative body of these unincorporated citizens, have no rights over land use. Thus, the primary political right, the right over the lands within your political community, is withheld from citizens in unincorporated sections of Texas.
Of greatest import was a justified complaint from a woman who owns and operates a farm in West Travis County along with several other families. At present, plans are in the works to surround their property on three sides with privately owned solar farms.
The immediate, primary material concern is the rising of ambient temperatures surrounding the solar farm by around 20 degrees. The deleterious effects of this temperature change on farming and on general livability cannot be overstated.
Of yet more pressing import is the fact that the County Commissioners, the proper representative body of these unincorporated citizens, have no rights over land use. Thus, the primary political right, the right over the lands within your political community, is withheld from citizens in unincorporated sections of Texas.
Monday, August 16, 2010
The End of the Economic Age
Ladies and gentlemen, we have hope that finally we might be nearing the end of the 'economic age', that era in which the masses and the intellectuals had hope that by describing all things in economic terms, world peace and prosperity would at last be in reach. To accomplish this, we gave up our citizenship and embraced our roles as mere 'consumers.'
Nearly all the conversation effecting the citizenry is expressed in this way. We think not of 'what is good for citizens', but what is good for the economy, what is good for the consumer, the two being (supposedly) connected at the hip.
It was Coolidge who first said, "The business of the United States is business," and Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. in recent years have said the same. Teddy Roosevelt would not approve. But not only the politicians but the people have jumped on that band wagon, nearly to the destruction of us all, as our dollar declines, our ecology is faltering, and a possible 'double dip' recession threatening just on the other side of the horizon. Let us hope it comes soon, before the damage it will do becomes worse, just as the larger floods remind us not to build on the floodplains.
Marx pointed to the strangeness of commodity fetishism in capitalism, capital itself which has become the fetish, the economic forecasters who have become the priests, the schools of economy the doctrine. Dogmatists abound; when we started to worry about the costs of war in Iraq, what did President G. W. Bush tell us to do? Spend more money; keep the economy going. Instead of addressing problems directly, we try to do everything the same way. Spend more! Buy more! Consume! The way out of this hole is to keep digging! The economists decided we could have our cake and eat it too, provided we ate it fast enough, deciding that modern economic principles could also overturn the axiom "You reap what you sow."
Nearly all the conversation effecting the citizenry is expressed in this way. We think not of 'what is good for citizens', but what is good for the economy, what is good for the consumer, the two being (supposedly) connected at the hip.
It was Coolidge who first said, "The business of the United States is business," and Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. in recent years have said the same. Teddy Roosevelt would not approve. But not only the politicians but the people have jumped on that band wagon, nearly to the destruction of us all, as our dollar declines, our ecology is faltering, and a possible 'double dip' recession threatening just on the other side of the horizon. Let us hope it comes soon, before the damage it will do becomes worse, just as the larger floods remind us not to build on the floodplains.
Marx pointed to the strangeness of commodity fetishism in capitalism, capital itself which has become the fetish, the economic forecasters who have become the priests, the schools of economy the doctrine. Dogmatists abound; when we started to worry about the costs of war in Iraq, what did President G. W. Bush tell us to do? Spend more money; keep the economy going. Instead of addressing problems directly, we try to do everything the same way. Spend more! Buy more! Consume! The way out of this hole is to keep digging! The economists decided we could have our cake and eat it too, provided we ate it fast enough, deciding that modern economic principles could also overturn the axiom "You reap what you sow."
Friday, August 6, 2010
Violence
I wonder, what would it take for people to resort to violence, and for the others not to think they have reacted somehow beyond reason.
By our standards today, the uprising of the American colonists against England would have been thought petulant, brutish, and almost certainly as rank terrorism with a blatant disregard for life. Now, the colonial people were not of immediate threat to their lives, nor to their property; they revolted for remarkably little as far as material reasons are concerned, much less than what we put up with from both out government and our corporations.
I saw a video the other day disputing claims that we are the most violent peoples on earth ever, that older societies had much more of a balance, their warfare being more for show than intending actual slaughter. Rather, says the video, as time has passed, war and cruelty have decreased steadily and significantly. It wears the assumption on its sleeve that this is a good thing.
What are you suggesting, Mr. Jacob? Blasphemy. Heresy. Am I suggesting violence is a good thing?
No. Not hardly. Though one must wonder about our propensity to sell ourselves for peace; to avoid confrontation not out of love, but out of fear. And most of all, to claim to be a self governed people, and yet vilify any and everyone who acts violently outside of the law, while at the same time upholding the rights of the state to not only use violence, but to provoke violence against it, that the victims might be called murderers themselves.
Nonsense. How it rules us. We are ruled by the letter of the law, not the intent, but we are afraid of ourselves and each other to such a great extent, that we dare not trust interpretation of the law, of its intentions, to the public at large. An FDA official attacks a small business, something so small as a child's lemonade stand, and we uphold the law? If we react the only way we can, with violence, we will be vilified. But what other way is there, besides a slow, strangling death of freedom, which leaves the body fully alive, to witness morosely its lacking of a soul. To have strangled that official, even to have ridden her out of town on a railroad tie, would have been considered a punishment in excess of her crime, for of course, she did not commit one, because it is not written.
Perhaps it is our fiction, the popular myths of the theater, of modern literature, which says we must wait...wait until it is in fact too late to sue for justice through violence? All too often, the hero is the one who waits, sees the 'foolish hotheads' do something stupid, which inevitably causes the death of the hero's own wife...then, and only then, when something personal has been taken away from you, is it reasonable to strike out. Strike for an ideal, for freedom, for others, and you are evil, forever tainted, branded a sinner, a traitor. Unless, of course, you wear the badge of the state, for we have given all the authority for justice up, not wishing it for ourselves.
By our standards today, the uprising of the American colonists against England would have been thought petulant, brutish, and almost certainly as rank terrorism with a blatant disregard for life. Now, the colonial people were not of immediate threat to their lives, nor to their property; they revolted for remarkably little as far as material reasons are concerned, much less than what we put up with from both out government and our corporations.
I saw a video the other day disputing claims that we are the most violent peoples on earth ever, that older societies had much more of a balance, their warfare being more for show than intending actual slaughter. Rather, says the video, as time has passed, war and cruelty have decreased steadily and significantly. It wears the assumption on its sleeve that this is a good thing.
What are you suggesting, Mr. Jacob? Blasphemy. Heresy. Am I suggesting violence is a good thing?
No. Not hardly. Though one must wonder about our propensity to sell ourselves for peace; to avoid confrontation not out of love, but out of fear. And most of all, to claim to be a self governed people, and yet vilify any and everyone who acts violently outside of the law, while at the same time upholding the rights of the state to not only use violence, but to provoke violence against it, that the victims might be called murderers themselves.
Nonsense. How it rules us. We are ruled by the letter of the law, not the intent, but we are afraid of ourselves and each other to such a great extent, that we dare not trust interpretation of the law, of its intentions, to the public at large. An FDA official attacks a small business, something so small as a child's lemonade stand, and we uphold the law? If we react the only way we can, with violence, we will be vilified. But what other way is there, besides a slow, strangling death of freedom, which leaves the body fully alive, to witness morosely its lacking of a soul. To have strangled that official, even to have ridden her out of town on a railroad tie, would have been considered a punishment in excess of her crime, for of course, she did not commit one, because it is not written.
Perhaps it is our fiction, the popular myths of the theater, of modern literature, which says we must wait...wait until it is in fact too late to sue for justice through violence? All too often, the hero is the one who waits, sees the 'foolish hotheads' do something stupid, which inevitably causes the death of the hero's own wife...then, and only then, when something personal has been taken away from you, is it reasonable to strike out. Strike for an ideal, for freedom, for others, and you are evil, forever tainted, branded a sinner, a traitor. Unless, of course, you wear the badge of the state, for we have given all the authority for justice up, not wishing it for ourselves.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
A Problem of Mobiilty
Our ability to travel easily and freely about the country has created significant economic and ethical problems and will continue to do so. When a person or people are not attached to a place, either physically, economically or emotionally, they are less likely to consider the long term effects of their behavior on that place.
The most obvious modern example of this is California. Southern California, with its sprawling metroplexes, became a sucking vortex for tax money. Referenda after referenda to create more and more social programs while decreasing taxes put the government in a black hole of debt.
Once there, the government has few real options other than cutting the social programs and shrinking the size of government via layoffs and wage cuts. If they attempt to tax business or the wealthier citizens more, those groups will simply move away. Relocation is easily done for these groups, from this state, for while the working class is the root of the state's wealth (no wealth would accrue without them, despite what apologists for big business and our particular brand of capitalism would boast), the well to do and big business hold all the capital which has been created. Since they have made a temporary powerhouse out of their economy, their money is significantly inflated compared to other parts of the country. Thus, they can freely uproot themselves and move to greener pastures cheaply, ready to repeat the cycle once again, siphoning money from state and lower and middle class while engorging themselves like ticks.
Given our societal lack of ideals which decry this sort of behavior, we condone, if not promote it.
Suffice it to say, given California's seemingly unsolvable problems, the best option is the least likely to happen: Revolution. The state, as a whole, will do better without the elitist classes; taxes should be raised to inordinate levels, forcing the rich from their homes and businesses. Once this is done, it leaves a necessary political hole for the middle and lower class to fill, for while these classes have, in recent history, been very willing to work long hours for relatively meager pay, they have not been willing to truly take responsibility for the well being of their state. This must change; they must see their state as an extension of themselves and their business and cease to hide behind the dual, destructive aphoristic premises of our modern culture which say man has absolute right over his "property" while also saying everybody must be taken care of.
Another way, even less likely to happen, is for the rich to actually take the reigns of government directly, rather than indirectly, as now, and force us into a true, rather than de facto, oligarchy. If this were the case, then the wealthy would become directly attached to the place in which they lived, for all responsibility for debt accrued would legally rest with them. Thus, they could not simply pack their bags and leave the failing state; they would be forced to take a vested interest in the goings on of their state, for better or worse, because the state's fortunes would be their own, thus limiting even tyrannical rule to a generation or two. Since our working classes are already rather pathetically peasantish in their mind sets, this could work fairly seamlessly.
Considering oligarchy is closer to what we already have, one might wonder why it is even less likely than a sort of 'worker's revolution'. The reason is because, in our de facto oligarchy, the elite have the best of both worlds: complete control of the economy and government without being tied to the fortunes of said economy or government.
Of course, we know neither of these revolutions will take place, for the US still has land to exploit, and therefore no incentive toward revolution, particularly since our culture has become so weak in these regards, unwilling to sacrifice our own flesh, or even time and effort, since we have professionals to do this for us. What will happen is our somewhat workable system will end up chugging on, making worse and worse the inevitable decline and fall.
The most obvious modern example of this is California. Southern California, with its sprawling metroplexes, became a sucking vortex for tax money. Referenda after referenda to create more and more social programs while decreasing taxes put the government in a black hole of debt.
Once there, the government has few real options other than cutting the social programs and shrinking the size of government via layoffs and wage cuts. If they attempt to tax business or the wealthier citizens more, those groups will simply move away. Relocation is easily done for these groups, from this state, for while the working class is the root of the state's wealth (no wealth would accrue without them, despite what apologists for big business and our particular brand of capitalism would boast), the well to do and big business hold all the capital which has been created. Since they have made a temporary powerhouse out of their economy, their money is significantly inflated compared to other parts of the country. Thus, they can freely uproot themselves and move to greener pastures cheaply, ready to repeat the cycle once again, siphoning money from state and lower and middle class while engorging themselves like ticks.
Given our societal lack of ideals which decry this sort of behavior, we condone, if not promote it.
Suffice it to say, given California's seemingly unsolvable problems, the best option is the least likely to happen: Revolution. The state, as a whole, will do better without the elitist classes; taxes should be raised to inordinate levels, forcing the rich from their homes and businesses. Once this is done, it leaves a necessary political hole for the middle and lower class to fill, for while these classes have, in recent history, been very willing to work long hours for relatively meager pay, they have not been willing to truly take responsibility for the well being of their state. This must change; they must see their state as an extension of themselves and their business and cease to hide behind the dual, destructive aphoristic premises of our modern culture which say man has absolute right over his "property" while also saying everybody must be taken care of.
Another way, even less likely to happen, is for the rich to actually take the reigns of government directly, rather than indirectly, as now, and force us into a true, rather than de facto, oligarchy. If this were the case, then the wealthy would become directly attached to the place in which they lived, for all responsibility for debt accrued would legally rest with them. Thus, they could not simply pack their bags and leave the failing state; they would be forced to take a vested interest in the goings on of their state, for better or worse, because the state's fortunes would be their own, thus limiting even tyrannical rule to a generation or two. Since our working classes are already rather pathetically peasantish in their mind sets, this could work fairly seamlessly.
Considering oligarchy is closer to what we already have, one might wonder why it is even less likely than a sort of 'worker's revolution'. The reason is because, in our de facto oligarchy, the elite have the best of both worlds: complete control of the economy and government without being tied to the fortunes of said economy or government.
Of course, we know neither of these revolutions will take place, for the US still has land to exploit, and therefore no incentive toward revolution, particularly since our culture has become so weak in these regards, unwilling to sacrifice our own flesh, or even time and effort, since we have professionals to do this for us. What will happen is our somewhat workable system will end up chugging on, making worse and worse the inevitable decline and fall.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Rampant Communism, part 1
Let us understand that there is a difference between a "welfare state" and a "communist" or "socialist state."
Communism and socialism are systems in which there is little or no free market exchange, meaning the government (or community) controls prices and production, redistributing wealth as it sees fit. It is a "post-monetary" system of economics, in which a person gains wealth determined by their merit or simply by their labor/time output.
A welfare state, or welfare society, is one in which money is redistributed by the government (community) or in which services (like healthcare and education) are shared in kind, publicly. In a welfare state, the economy is not necessarily controlled by the government/community, unless it is also a communist state.
In this manner, any state with a public education system shares in a sort of welfare state. Likewise, the existence of libraries and public swimming pools, etc. can be considered as such. The important thing to realize is that making certain useful things publicly owned and run does not necessarily mean that the economy is moving toward socialism or communism, as there are still large portions of the economy which operate on free market principals.
In my next blog, I will speak more rhetorically of our propensity to label things communist or socialist and why we should narrow our definition while broadening our field for inclusion.
Communism and socialism are systems in which there is little or no free market exchange, meaning the government (or community) controls prices and production, redistributing wealth as it sees fit. It is a "post-monetary" system of economics, in which a person gains wealth determined by their merit or simply by their labor/time output.
A welfare state, or welfare society, is one in which money is redistributed by the government (community) or in which services (like healthcare and education) are shared in kind, publicly. In a welfare state, the economy is not necessarily controlled by the government/community, unless it is also a communist state.
In this manner, any state with a public education system shares in a sort of welfare state. Likewise, the existence of libraries and public swimming pools, etc. can be considered as such. The important thing to realize is that making certain useful things publicly owned and run does not necessarily mean that the economy is moving toward socialism or communism, as there are still large portions of the economy which operate on free market principals.
In my next blog, I will speak more rhetorically of our propensity to label things communist or socialist and why we should narrow our definition while broadening our field for inclusion.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Independence Day
Independence does not promise wealth. It does not promise ease or happiness. And yet the American ethos cries out this principal: Independence is sublime, transcendent, superior to any shoddy slavishness no matter how much material wealth is promised.
Is this how we see Independence today? I think it is not. Not fully. For even as we say "Government, keep out of our business. Government, do not make us dependent," we cry out to the corporate hegemony to make us more and more dependent on them for all our needs. We have put aside our aspirations of self governance. In fact, a dominant sect of modern conservatism would have us believe that the only role of government is to stave off self rule in favor of rule by money. Is it that we believe in social Darwinism, that the strong make themselves known through their control of money, and therefore are those fit to lead? Is it because we so hate arbitrary rule, that we hide behind the feigned impartiality of the market place (except in matters of sexuality) to decide for us what is right and what is wrong? We have tossed aside our political freedom, our right of self rule, in favor of a economic and liberal freedoms, to lighten the law upon ourselves, to allow a few individuals with money to make our decisions for us.
This is the way I would suggest we look at Independence. Independence is that part of us which with pride and courage says "I don't need you; I can do this on my own." An independent person cares not what others think and chooses to depend on them for as little as possible. The less he needs them, the less he is dependent. But an independent polity says the same thing; it says to its bigger brethren--the state, the nation, the world--"I do not need you; I can make it on my own," which of course means the citizens of that polity say, "We do not need external rule, but we do need each other." This is not to say that independence is necessarily haughty, or anti-social, or isolationist; it is merely not dependent on others (external others, for whatever group or body you wish to call independent) for what it needs. And it chooses independence over promises of wealth and security and externally imposed justice, for it could not call itself Independent otherwise.
Is this how we see Independence today? I think it is not. Not fully. For even as we say "Government, keep out of our business. Government, do not make us dependent," we cry out to the corporate hegemony to make us more and more dependent on them for all our needs. We have put aside our aspirations of self governance. In fact, a dominant sect of modern conservatism would have us believe that the only role of government is to stave off self rule in favor of rule by money. Is it that we believe in social Darwinism, that the strong make themselves known through their control of money, and therefore are those fit to lead? Is it because we so hate arbitrary rule, that we hide behind the feigned impartiality of the market place (except in matters of sexuality) to decide for us what is right and what is wrong? We have tossed aside our political freedom, our right of self rule, in favor of a economic and liberal freedoms, to lighten the law upon ourselves, to allow a few individuals with money to make our decisions for us.
This is the way I would suggest we look at Independence. Independence is that part of us which with pride and courage says "I don't need you; I can do this on my own." An independent person cares not what others think and chooses to depend on them for as little as possible. The less he needs them, the less he is dependent. But an independent polity says the same thing; it says to its bigger brethren--the state, the nation, the world--"I do not need you; I can make it on my own," which of course means the citizens of that polity say, "We do not need external rule, but we do need each other." This is not to say that independence is necessarily haughty, or anti-social, or isolationist; it is merely not dependent on others (external others, for whatever group or body you wish to call independent) for what it needs. And it chooses independence over promises of wealth and security and externally imposed justice, for it could not call itself Independent otherwise.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Sustainability
This should be pretty obvious, but it seems it is not.
A few years back I read an article about the discovery of a monstrous fishery off the coast of Australia. Commercial fishing jumped on it, consuming until the fishery was imperiled. When questioned, they said they thought they really had found a sustainable fishery.
There is no such thing as a sustainable resource.
There are only sustainable practices.
I'm not sure why this should need explanation. Resources are finite; if they are not treated with care then they can be overused. Even wind energy isn't properly sustainable, though it is lauded as the future of sustainable energy.(check out Power Hungry by Robert Brice for more on the problems with wind energy). This is because, no matter how much energy we have, we will never have enough if we always crave more.
The only way to have a sustainable resource is to adapt our behavior to sustain that resource.
A few years back I read an article about the discovery of a monstrous fishery off the coast of Australia. Commercial fishing jumped on it, consuming until the fishery was imperiled. When questioned, they said they thought they really had found a sustainable fishery.
There is no such thing as a sustainable resource.
There are only sustainable practices.
I'm not sure why this should need explanation. Resources are finite; if they are not treated with care then they can be overused. Even wind energy isn't properly sustainable, though it is lauded as the future of sustainable energy.(check out Power Hungry by Robert Brice for more on the problems with wind energy). This is because, no matter how much energy we have, we will never have enough if we always crave more.
The only way to have a sustainable resource is to adapt our behavior to sustain that resource.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Home Food Libertarianism
Economic rules favor capital. It is in the hands of those who have the means of production. The impoverished, with little know-how in business start up, no capital to start the business, and likely bad credit, have little hope of pulling themselves up aside from working for their oppressors. Corporate interests will look at themselves proudly and say, "We are their benefactors, without us, the poor could not even exist as they do." Lies. They are oppressors, pure and simple.
Regulations favor the large; it needs not be argued. Those with capital can meet regulation standards, those without it cannot. To allow the impoverished to improve themselves, we must remove the reigns from home industry. Food and manufacturing on a very small scale should be allowed in the home, without the burdensome requirements of modern food quality laws. If their are health problems, people can complain about them, but it is horrendous to completely make illegal all home food preparation. For many people, this may be a way out of poverty, a way to make their own way, their own business. They cannot afford commercial kitchens for food preparation.
These laws are supposedly made for the public interest, for health reasons. Ridiculous. You might as well insist that every meal cooked be made in a commercial kitchen; elsewise, all parents should be arrested for endangering the health of their children.
Yes, large restaurants, corporate food magnates, etc. ought to have strict regulations, because these things are beyond human in scale and because their behavior warrants it (compare food born illness complaints in Austin between trailers (1%) and restaurants (16%)...or what about the now defunct due to regulation Good Flow Juice, never one known case of illness attributed to bad juice). But the house that makes tacos to sell from a cart? That is hardly the same thing. Don't you think if they had the ability they would do their preparing in a commercial kitchen, if only to avoid making a mess in their house? They are not trying to beat the system, they are trying to make their own way with their own business, and we are not letting them.
Now, this is an extreme; most places don't allow food to be made for public consumption in home, but I think its workable, personally. But let us not forget the added fees and regulations in general added to small businesses. They are small, if they are bad, they will fail; its the big things that never seem to die.
Regulations favor the large; it needs not be argued. Those with capital can meet regulation standards, those without it cannot. To allow the impoverished to improve themselves, we must remove the reigns from home industry. Food and manufacturing on a very small scale should be allowed in the home, without the burdensome requirements of modern food quality laws. If their are health problems, people can complain about them, but it is horrendous to completely make illegal all home food preparation. For many people, this may be a way out of poverty, a way to make their own way, their own business. They cannot afford commercial kitchens for food preparation.
These laws are supposedly made for the public interest, for health reasons. Ridiculous. You might as well insist that every meal cooked be made in a commercial kitchen; elsewise, all parents should be arrested for endangering the health of their children.
Yes, large restaurants, corporate food magnates, etc. ought to have strict regulations, because these things are beyond human in scale and because their behavior warrants it (compare food born illness complaints in Austin between trailers (1%) and restaurants (16%)...or what about the now defunct due to regulation Good Flow Juice, never one known case of illness attributed to bad juice). But the house that makes tacos to sell from a cart? That is hardly the same thing. Don't you think if they had the ability they would do their preparing in a commercial kitchen, if only to avoid making a mess in their house? They are not trying to beat the system, they are trying to make their own way with their own business, and we are not letting them.
Now, this is an extreme; most places don't allow food to be made for public consumption in home, but I think its workable, personally. But let us not forget the added fees and regulations in general added to small businesses. They are small, if they are bad, they will fail; its the big things that never seem to die.
Friday, June 11, 2010
This Week in Austin
I've spent about 12 hours this week in one sort of city related meeting or another. Do not be impressed, I'm not a council member or anything, just a citizen trying to take more part in local government. Turns out, they basically try to discourage you from that.
What does he mean? Well, the primary point of contention is the lack of contention. At most public meetings the citizens are allowed to get up and speak; at most of these there is a 3 minute time limit and they only allow a certain number of speakers. After all the public that they want to let speak has spoken, the council may ask questions, but usually they don't. Instead they go straight to a vote, and you never hear anything about why the points you made on the behalf of item X are good or bad or otherwise. They will vote against your position without giving any reasons whatsoever, as though your point of view does not exist. Even if the council members have disagreements, they will not discuss them there. Perhaps they have a forum where they do discuss such things, or perhaps they are actually prohibited from open debate in the council chambers (something I'll have to look into).
At the council meeting yesterday they gave 45 minutes; this is first come first served. The items I was interested in were #5 and #10 concerning the building of a new water plant and its transmission lines. The Mayor gave 45 minutes for public speaking, saying he would give no more since this was not a public hearing (was there a public hearing on this, I don't know). Now, at one point in time in Austin's history, there was no such limitation; as many people could come and speak as might wish to. I have no doubt this slowed things down tremendously, but who says democracy should be fast?
30 minutes were taken up by neighborhood association folk who basically said the same things over that time, leaving 15 minutes for an SOS member who had written a report the likely rate increases of water this would cause when there really was no demand from more water. In fact, we are well behind expected water expenditures this year because of rain and because of people's on conservation; thus, the water utility is not pulling in as much money as usual. His point was, then, that it would be foolish to spend a very large sum of money when we aren't even using up close to all the supply we currently have (they have broken up the project into bits, so its hard to say how much, but the items yesterday I think added up to somewhere between 60 and 100 million--I know those are disparate numbers, but they are in the tens of millions, and therefore, well, pretty big even on the low end).
The night before this, more presentations were given at the water/waste water commissioners hearing. The SOS presentations were actually pretty good with lots of information that the commissioners clearly had not heard before, and which the city staff present could in no way counter, though he insisted that data to support his position existed, it just was too much to bring before the panel. One member of the commission, a Ms. Faust, actually seemed to take the new information into consideration, including an apparent fact regarding the necessity of having a Fish and Wildlife inspection to receive a permit to build on a land with several endangered and/or threatened species. The inspection is slated to take at least 6 months. Faust suggested they postpone moving forward until the permit was received, as it seemed foolish to allocate resources (made through contractual obligations) when they could not be sure that they could even build on the land. But her motion did not even receive a second. No reasons were given as to why a second should not be given, once again leading me to believe that they might actually be forbidden to have open discussion or debate of issues. The other commissioners sat coldly by, and at the motion to recommend the project be approved by city council, three voted for, and one against, the others abstaining.
Likewise, at the city council meeting, council member Speldman and one other (whose name I will need to look up) asked questions, and they were 2 of the 3 of the dissenting opinion. Those who did not ask questions and did not give their opinion in any way shape or form voted for the project to proceed.
Frankly, after the presentations given by the public at the council meeting, this made some sense. Most of the speakers came off as NIMBY, and even Mr. Henson with his presentation on likely water rate increases (expected to rise 74% in the next 5 years by his calculations, to pay for the bonds needed to build this plant) did not seem as professional as the previous night. Some of the SOS folk gathered near the mic in quiet protest of not being allowed to speak. Among these were Bill Bunch who had given a very good presentation on the environmental dangers of building the plant in its suggested location as well as reasons why water use by Austin Water customers has not been going up (interesting to note, in San Antonio water use has been flat even after gaining 100,000 in population--if I recall correctly, there were a few figures like this, but 100,000 would be on the low end, it might have been 250,000).
The best protest site for this is here: http://savewatersavemoney.org/
Note: I am in no way affiliated with the above site, SOS, etc. I receive newsletters from SOS and regularly check my county and city websites.
What does he mean? Well, the primary point of contention is the lack of contention. At most public meetings the citizens are allowed to get up and speak; at most of these there is a 3 minute time limit and they only allow a certain number of speakers. After all the public that they want to let speak has spoken, the council may ask questions, but usually they don't. Instead they go straight to a vote, and you never hear anything about why the points you made on the behalf of item X are good or bad or otherwise. They will vote against your position without giving any reasons whatsoever, as though your point of view does not exist. Even if the council members have disagreements, they will not discuss them there. Perhaps they have a forum where they do discuss such things, or perhaps they are actually prohibited from open debate in the council chambers (something I'll have to look into).
At the council meeting yesterday they gave 45 minutes; this is first come first served. The items I was interested in were #5 and #10 concerning the building of a new water plant and its transmission lines. The Mayor gave 45 minutes for public speaking, saying he would give no more since this was not a public hearing (was there a public hearing on this, I don't know). Now, at one point in time in Austin's history, there was no such limitation; as many people could come and speak as might wish to. I have no doubt this slowed things down tremendously, but who says democracy should be fast?
30 minutes were taken up by neighborhood association folk who basically said the same things over that time, leaving 15 minutes for an SOS member who had written a report the likely rate increases of water this would cause when there really was no demand from more water. In fact, we are well behind expected water expenditures this year because of rain and because of people's on conservation; thus, the water utility is not pulling in as much money as usual. His point was, then, that it would be foolish to spend a very large sum of money when we aren't even using up close to all the supply we currently have (they have broken up the project into bits, so its hard to say how much, but the items yesterday I think added up to somewhere between 60 and 100 million--I know those are disparate numbers, but they are in the tens of millions, and therefore, well, pretty big even on the low end).
The night before this, more presentations were given at the water/waste water commissioners hearing. The SOS presentations were actually pretty good with lots of information that the commissioners clearly had not heard before, and which the city staff present could in no way counter, though he insisted that data to support his position existed, it just was too much to bring before the panel. One member of the commission, a Ms. Faust, actually seemed to take the new information into consideration, including an apparent fact regarding the necessity of having a Fish and Wildlife inspection to receive a permit to build on a land with several endangered and/or threatened species. The inspection is slated to take at least 6 months. Faust suggested they postpone moving forward until the permit was received, as it seemed foolish to allocate resources (made through contractual obligations) when they could not be sure that they could even build on the land. But her motion did not even receive a second. No reasons were given as to why a second should not be given, once again leading me to believe that they might actually be forbidden to have open discussion or debate of issues. The other commissioners sat coldly by, and at the motion to recommend the project be approved by city council, three voted for, and one against, the others abstaining.
Likewise, at the city council meeting, council member Speldman and one other (whose name I will need to look up) asked questions, and they were 2 of the 3 of the dissenting opinion. Those who did not ask questions and did not give their opinion in any way shape or form voted for the project to proceed.
Frankly, after the presentations given by the public at the council meeting, this made some sense. Most of the speakers came off as NIMBY, and even Mr. Henson with his presentation on likely water rate increases (expected to rise 74% in the next 5 years by his calculations, to pay for the bonds needed to build this plant) did not seem as professional as the previous night. Some of the SOS folk gathered near the mic in quiet protest of not being allowed to speak. Among these were Bill Bunch who had given a very good presentation on the environmental dangers of building the plant in its suggested location as well as reasons why water use by Austin Water customers has not been going up (interesting to note, in San Antonio water use has been flat even after gaining 100,000 in population--if I recall correctly, there were a few figures like this, but 100,000 would be on the low end, it might have been 250,000).
The best protest site for this is here: http://savewatersavemoney.org/
Note: I am in no way affiliated with the above site, SOS, etc. I receive newsletters from SOS and regularly check my county and city websites.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Sins of the Fathers
It goes against modern Biblical and theological thought to take some of the old testament seriously, and we will go to lengths to explain away various anomalous points of view. The punishment of David's son for David's own misdeeds is one of these. Today we find it difficult to imagine the punishment of the innocent for the mistakes of the father. How can Ham's children be cursed throughout the generations? How is that just? How can a just god punish innocent children for a previous generations misdeeds?
So when I say that this goes against modern religious thought, I also of course include non-theistic philosophies. I have no doubt that some people site the above as the very reasons why they forsake any theistic religions; how could they believe in a God that punishes the innocent for the fault of the guilty. Surely the ancients were warped; they had a sick sense of justice.
No, says I, they were more realistic, more empirical, and less blinded by ideology than we are. One need only look at history to see that constantly and forever more, a generation is punished for the crimes of those preceding it. Rather than go from some abstraction of God as an all good and kind being, they went from what they knew, and described God from it. They knew, because they could witness it throughout history and every day life, that when a father screws up, his children are punished. They are cursed because he has been improprietous, unjust, lacking in foresight, etc.
Let us look at Confucian scholarship. What is the Mandate of Heaven? It is, to be a bit crude in translation, the eastern equivalent of the divine right of kings. In other words, a king rises because he is just and falls because he is unjust. But Confucius knew better than to think it that direct; rather, he says that when a ruler falls, it is more likely because the Mandate of Heaven was lost in the previous generation, by the misdeeds of his forerunner. Thus, a just king might lose his kingdom because he inherited it from an unjust king. Is this justice? How could we follow a philosophy with such obvious unfairness?
Because it is true! Because history is full of "divine punishment" upon populations for what was done before, and it is folly--FOLLY!--to believe we have the moral high ground because we seem to be doing well today, because we are rich today. Whether or not we were morally upright, whether we were considerate of our children and theirs, will be shown by history after we are dead. We must not look to our present to see how we are doing, our stock portfolios will tell us nothing! We must look at history, at the actions that preceded downfall and decline time after time: these include reckless abuse of resources, environmental degradation, cultural degradation (particularly a loss of rural culture), and excessive abuse of the monetary system by elites. And all of these things we can see happening today, and they will boil and fester for a generation or more until finally our grandchildren will pay the price in blood for our ignorant bliss.
So when I say that this goes against modern religious thought, I also of course include non-theistic philosophies. I have no doubt that some people site the above as the very reasons why they forsake any theistic religions; how could they believe in a God that punishes the innocent for the fault of the guilty. Surely the ancients were warped; they had a sick sense of justice.
No, says I, they were more realistic, more empirical, and less blinded by ideology than we are. One need only look at history to see that constantly and forever more, a generation is punished for the crimes of those preceding it. Rather than go from some abstraction of God as an all good and kind being, they went from what they knew, and described God from it. They knew, because they could witness it throughout history and every day life, that when a father screws up, his children are punished. They are cursed because he has been improprietous, unjust, lacking in foresight, etc.
Let us look at Confucian scholarship. What is the Mandate of Heaven? It is, to be a bit crude in translation, the eastern equivalent of the divine right of kings. In other words, a king rises because he is just and falls because he is unjust. But Confucius knew better than to think it that direct; rather, he says that when a ruler falls, it is more likely because the Mandate of Heaven was lost in the previous generation, by the misdeeds of his forerunner. Thus, a just king might lose his kingdom because he inherited it from an unjust king. Is this justice? How could we follow a philosophy with such obvious unfairness?
Because it is true! Because history is full of "divine punishment" upon populations for what was done before, and it is folly--FOLLY!--to believe we have the moral high ground because we seem to be doing well today, because we are rich today. Whether or not we were morally upright, whether we were considerate of our children and theirs, will be shown by history after we are dead. We must not look to our present to see how we are doing, our stock portfolios will tell us nothing! We must look at history, at the actions that preceded downfall and decline time after time: these include reckless abuse of resources, environmental degradation, cultural degradation (particularly a loss of rural culture), and excessive abuse of the monetary system by elites. And all of these things we can see happening today, and they will boil and fester for a generation or more until finally our grandchildren will pay the price in blood for our ignorant bliss.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Israel the Defiant Middle Schooler
While I'm no Anti-Semite I would like to express my disapproval of the recent actions of Israel. I understand that they believe that the Palestinians are on their land and that they are pretty much being picked on by every other country in the neighborhood but that does not give them justification to stop aid ships. Nor to does it give them the right to board other countries ships. I bet you if Iran did something like that the world would be up in arms.
Israel believes that their actions were legal under international law, and they are correct to an extent. I forget the exact law but in a time of war or crisis another country is able to blockade and board ships attempting to assist an enemy. So you can clearly see the problem Turkey has with this notion. One, Turkey doesn't (I would argue neither does most of the rest of the world) recognize that Israel is in a state of war. 2. Even if Israel is a state of war, it's not even in a war with a true state or recognized country. The Palestinian Authority is not a voting member of the UN nor does it get privy to other privileges.
Now, could Israel make a case that it is in a state of war? Yes, it very well could but ultimately the rest of the word does not see it as such or rather choose not to. This is the same problem that my co-blogger would run into in his post about hippies taking the offensive. If the majority of the public doesn't see your perspective or they believe you to be nuts then you simply won't get far or legitimacy.
Legitimacy is a very difficult thing to put into words or even to conceptualize. It is so important; it can either make or break any regime. Someone more intelligent could be better explain the importance of having a legitimate action or regime. Again, based on what I believe and have read, I strongly feel that Israel's actions have been too much and they have been acting like an unruly middle school student. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions. And like so many middle school students they repeatedly deny any wrong action.
If you want true legitimacy you must take responsibility for your actions.
-AMartinez
Israel believes that their actions were legal under international law, and they are correct to an extent. I forget the exact law but in a time of war or crisis another country is able to blockade and board ships attempting to assist an enemy. So you can clearly see the problem Turkey has with this notion. One, Turkey doesn't (I would argue neither does most of the rest of the world) recognize that Israel is in a state of war. 2. Even if Israel is a state of war, it's not even in a war with a true state or recognized country. The Palestinian Authority is not a voting member of the UN nor does it get privy to other privileges.
Now, could Israel make a case that it is in a state of war? Yes, it very well could but ultimately the rest of the word does not see it as such or rather choose not to. This is the same problem that my co-blogger would run into in his post about hippies taking the offensive. If the majority of the public doesn't see your perspective or they believe you to be nuts then you simply won't get far or legitimacy.
Legitimacy is a very difficult thing to put into words or even to conceptualize. It is so important; it can either make or break any regime. Someone more intelligent could be better explain the importance of having a legitimate action or regime. Again, based on what I believe and have read, I strongly feel that Israel's actions have been too much and they have been acting like an unruly middle school student. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions. And like so many middle school students they repeatedly deny any wrong action.
If you want true legitimacy you must take responsibility for your actions.
-AMartinez
Here is a brief article concerning the growth of Special Forces
In as much as strategy is concerned, Obama is obviously proving himself rather sharp here, much more than those who preceded him. The conventional military is not equipped to deal with the specialized operations needed around the world. We are still practically trapped in trenches of WWII. In particular, the conventional military lacks the lingual and cultural backgrounds which is so important when "peacefully" occupying a foreign country. (The "peacefully is not meant to be ironic; I really do mean that it is at least not a war to exterminate or utterly subordinate the native populace) This move is something that should have been a long time coming.
In all honesty, our strategy of relying on technology more than the human mind has proved remarkably short sighted. It is strategically inferior and also cheats the soldiers out of growth, into a chance at becoming intelligent warriors as opposed to merely a mobile weapons platform. To spread the expertise of the special forces more broadly throughout the military should be part of our battle plan.
Much like most modern religions, afraid of losing membership due to its harshness, our military has in many ways become too soft, not pushing our soldiers mentally or physically as far as they should be pushed. Truly, it is a cultural malady, and there are reports that many of the youths entering into military life are in very bad shape from a sedentary life of videogames and television. No doubt that it is also the case that their faculties of reasoning are equally blunted from a lack of mental stimulation and introspection.
The military is, of course, famously anti-intellectual, and there are obvious reasons why this should be fostered. A man who thinks too much about killing is perhaps less likely to kill without thinking, and therefore less useful as a weapon. I would suggest that this is another outmoded and, in a democracy, outlandishly dangerous point of view. Our soldiers should be the most thoughtful, the most educated in philosophy and history, in political sciences. The soldiers day should never be spent idle, for as a potent and powerful being, he has a responsibility to think. And no doubt it would be best for the republic, for many soldiers return from duty thinking themselves above such banal and effeminate tasks like thinking when they already 'know' everything.
So, what can the average citizen do at home? My suggestion is you buy a gun and learn how to use it. Keep your mind sharp, your body lean and ready. There may be a day when your country needs you to fight for the military, or when the country needs you to fight against the military. If there were ever a reason to fight against our own government, you would be no better off than the terrorists (which is precisely what you would be labeled). Aside from brutal force and numbers, you would also be spied upon from unseen eyes from the heavens, fired upon by snipers who remain well out of reach among the clouds. For this reason, it is not enough to trust the nationally controlled military for security.
Bygone are the days when having a few town cannons might at least make the enemy think twice before attacking, when your life had to be bought by the enemies' blood. Now you can be exterminated over a cup of coffee, your murderer a hundred or a thousand miles away, cozy in a cubicle. This is not the sort of technology which should be allowed a democratic government; it can only be a tool of oppression. A nation's strength is in its people. We must be willing to die, and that willingness must be real, it must be alive. If it were, perhaps we would be more choosy about which wars we involved ourselves in. This is done not to save lives, but to save our liberty from ourselves.
So, again, a brilliant step in the right direction for our military, refocusing our resources on special operators, well trained, thoughtful men, but drones should be banished. I cringe at the thought of assassinations done in my name by proxy of a machine. I cannot think of a way to appear more cowardly.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Provided we ever get involved in a just war again, I will be proud to become the embodiment of the phrase.
ps. I am so, so sorry that I ramble on so rather than staying on one topic. Consider it a weakness in my writing. I'll work on it. In the meantime, enjoy my over broad rantings.
In as much as strategy is concerned, Obama is obviously proving himself rather sharp here, much more than those who preceded him. The conventional military is not equipped to deal with the specialized operations needed around the world. We are still practically trapped in trenches of WWII. In particular, the conventional military lacks the lingual and cultural backgrounds which is so important when "peacefully" occupying a foreign country. (The "peacefully is not meant to be ironic; I really do mean that it is at least not a war to exterminate or utterly subordinate the native populace) This move is something that should have been a long time coming.
In all honesty, our strategy of relying on technology more than the human mind has proved remarkably short sighted. It is strategically inferior and also cheats the soldiers out of growth, into a chance at becoming intelligent warriors as opposed to merely a mobile weapons platform. To spread the expertise of the special forces more broadly throughout the military should be part of our battle plan.
Much like most modern religions, afraid of losing membership due to its harshness, our military has in many ways become too soft, not pushing our soldiers mentally or physically as far as they should be pushed. Truly, it is a cultural malady, and there are reports that many of the youths entering into military life are in very bad shape from a sedentary life of videogames and television. No doubt that it is also the case that their faculties of reasoning are equally blunted from a lack of mental stimulation and introspection.
The military is, of course, famously anti-intellectual, and there are obvious reasons why this should be fostered. A man who thinks too much about killing is perhaps less likely to kill without thinking, and therefore less useful as a weapon. I would suggest that this is another outmoded and, in a democracy, outlandishly dangerous point of view. Our soldiers should be the most thoughtful, the most educated in philosophy and history, in political sciences. The soldiers day should never be spent idle, for as a potent and powerful being, he has a responsibility to think. And no doubt it would be best for the republic, for many soldiers return from duty thinking themselves above such banal and effeminate tasks like thinking when they already 'know' everything.
So, what can the average citizen do at home? My suggestion is you buy a gun and learn how to use it. Keep your mind sharp, your body lean and ready. There may be a day when your country needs you to fight for the military, or when the country needs you to fight against the military. If there were ever a reason to fight against our own government, you would be no better off than the terrorists (which is precisely what you would be labeled). Aside from brutal force and numbers, you would also be spied upon from unseen eyes from the heavens, fired upon by snipers who remain well out of reach among the clouds. For this reason, it is not enough to trust the nationally controlled military for security.
Bygone are the days when having a few town cannons might at least make the enemy think twice before attacking, when your life had to be bought by the enemies' blood. Now you can be exterminated over a cup of coffee, your murderer a hundred or a thousand miles away, cozy in a cubicle. This is not the sort of technology which should be allowed a democratic government; it can only be a tool of oppression. A nation's strength is in its people. We must be willing to die, and that willingness must be real, it must be alive. If it were, perhaps we would be more choosy about which wars we involved ourselves in. This is done not to save lives, but to save our liberty from ourselves.
So, again, a brilliant step in the right direction for our military, refocusing our resources on special operators, well trained, thoughtful men, but drones should be banished. I cringe at the thought of assassinations done in my name by proxy of a machine. I cannot think of a way to appear more cowardly.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Provided we ever get involved in a just war again, I will be proud to become the embodiment of the phrase.
ps. I am so, so sorry that I ramble on so rather than staying on one topic. Consider it a weakness in my writing. I'll work on it. In the meantime, enjoy my over broad rantings.
Future 1 - PrimeOx
It is not enough to keep Austin weird. The movement is doomed to fail, for it is not a movement at all, but rather a defensive plea. Without momentum, it cannot even hope to stay in place. To keep Austin weird, we must Make Austin Weirder, and this should be our rallying cry.
Weird the World.
To accomplish this, the hippies, environmentalists, anarchists, etc. must not be content to sit in their own safe havens. No, we must invade the suburbs. We must steal the homes and stomping ground from beneath our enemies' feet. For, to be sure, they are our enemies; if it is a cultural war, then we must take it on the offensive.
Offensive is the key word. We must be offensive, more and more, and in such a way that we cannot be ignored or written off. We must be offensive underfoot. We must be "in your face" in their faces. Their homes must become the battleground, for thus far, it is always the beautiful places which are the battle grounds, and so the beautiful places which are lost. It is not enough to "save the environment" we must actively spread the right kind of environment. Just as in Detroit, the blighted landscape of sprawl must be reclaimed for something better--why wait until we are forced to by circumstances? Far better to do it voluntarily and before the problem is worsened.
So too in Austin, and everywhere else, we must begin reclaiming the land from the intrusive asphalt.
Prime Ox
No More Zombies
Weird the World.
To accomplish this, the hippies, environmentalists, anarchists, etc. must not be content to sit in their own safe havens. No, we must invade the suburbs. We must steal the homes and stomping ground from beneath our enemies' feet. For, to be sure, they are our enemies; if it is a cultural war, then we must take it on the offensive.
Offensive is the key word. We must be offensive, more and more, and in such a way that we cannot be ignored or written off. We must be offensive underfoot. We must be "in your face" in their faces. Their homes must become the battleground, for thus far, it is always the beautiful places which are the battle grounds, and so the beautiful places which are lost. It is not enough to "save the environment" we must actively spread the right kind of environment. Just as in Detroit, the blighted landscape of sprawl must be reclaimed for something better--why wait until we are forced to by circumstances? Far better to do it voluntarily and before the problem is worsened.
So too in Austin, and everywhere else, we must begin reclaiming the land from the intrusive asphalt.
Prime Ox
No More Zombies
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)