After 16,000 or so Republicans in the 30th most populous state in the country paid $30.00 each to tell us who they would vote for if the Iowa Caucuses were held today, the Republican presidential field is apparently already down to three candidates. I would like to think that neither the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, nor the Wicked Witch of the Midwest could win the general election, but I thought the same thing about a washed up actor in 1979. Keep stirring the economic malaise and fold in a foreign policy disaster or two in the next year, and I suspect Charlie Sheen could get elected with the right campaign staff.
So why is it that an election that happens fifteen months from now is already 90% half-decided*? The answer is -- say it with me -- money, of course. Now that the Supreme Court has declared corporations to be people, apparently in direct contradiction to the inconvenient fact that corporations were specifically created to be not people, and tacked on the double bonus of unlimited campaign contributions and no one having to tell where they got the bags of money, it's a new day. Campaign commercials have already started airing in my state, which hasn't gone Democratic since 1996, and where McCain/Palin took almost 60% of the votes in 2008. It seems like the Republicans could run about three commercials a day starting next November 1st and be confident of winning, but I guess they've got money to burn.
At least the three candidates who are apparently still standing. The rest will have to live on their government salaries and farm subsidies. It's going to be an interesting fifteen months. And by interesting, I mean I'm sure I'm going to want to eat a gun by the time it's over. Luckily, Louisiana is working on a law to allow concealed weapons on college campuses, so I may have the option.
* Thanks Yogi. They really don't make them like you anymore.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, August 15, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Don't call me a "liberal"
I try not to write about politics any more than I can help, but recent events have agitated me to the point that I can't actually hold my tongue (or my fingers, I guess) anymore.
It seems that every time I get into a discussion with more rightward-leaning friends or acquaintances, or witness such a discussion secondhand, the phrase "you liberals are all the same" will eventually be fired, turning the discourse from the topic at hand to a question of ideology. Of course, in this case the ideological divide is pre-framed between patriotic, God-fearing Americans who believe people should take responsibility for their actions and live within their means, and homosexual socialist muslim-atheist abortion peddlers who want to drown us all in crack babies, taxes, and bureaucratic red tape. An extreme -- though sadly not unique -- example appeared yesterday on weather.com in the comments to an article on the Texas drought.
This is usually the point at which I disengage from the conversation. But just to be on the record, I want to state unequivocally that I am not a "liberal." Yes, it's true that I am happy that government exists, that they make sure our railroad tracks are all the same size, and that no one feeds us dog meat and calls it beef.* I believe in liberal ideals like "science" and "education," and I somehow manage to see the economy as a part of our environment, instead of the other way around. I like roads, and bridges, and schools, and I think I'm glad they are not all built and controlled by private companies. At least not yet.
Speaking of roads, bridges, and schools, people build fortunes using our public roads and bridges, the government-developed internet, and labor from our public schools, colleges, and universities. Their overseas interests are protected by our federally funded armed forces. I take some issue with those same people acting like they did it all themselves, and that any attempt to reclaim some of their profits to continue funding that infrastructure is somehow immoral.
And admittedly I find it a little difficult to blame all of our problems on the poor. True, they did trick the banks into signing them up for those subprime mortgages and ruin our economy, but I think that may have been a lucky shot. Mostly they seem to work hard and die early. Oh, that's right. They clog our emergency rooms and raise health care costs. And fill our privatized prisons. I almost forgot.
On the other hand, I'm okay living in an armed society, but I don't try to kid myself into thinking that it makes us safer. I think people should work if they can, though I also think it would be great if we could help create jobs for those on the edges.
I think government is best that happens closest to the people. I don't believe that government -- especially central government -- should regulate our personal behavior, child-rearing, morality, or religion to the extent that they do. And I'm more than willing to debate what level of social safety net we will provide, and what level of food, shelter, and medical services should be guaranteed to those who cannot afford to pay.
But what part of thinking that government should stay out of people's medical decisions advances the idea of the nanny state? Why is government subsidizing higher populations, crappier food, or overseas companies in my interest as an American? Why is it so patriotic to give away our shared resources to multinational corporations, allow them to do whatever damage they desire exploiting them, and then socialize the cost of cleaning up their mess? And what part of "small government" requires us to maintain a military presence in over 130 countries?
European social democracies -- as we know, the most evil of all forms of government -- tend to have taxes about twice as high as what we pay (or are supposed to pay) in the U.S. But every business owner knows what they are getting in exchange for that money. They don't have to pay health insurance premiums. They don't pay for retirement benefits or disability insurance. They don't pay separately for infrastructure that the government provides. They pay less for well qualified workers than comparable American companies, even though the cost of living is higher.
What do we get in return for our tax money? The biggest chunk goes to hospitals and doctors who work around the clock to help eighty-eight year olds survive to be eighty-eight and a half. It goes to pharmaceutical companies that sell drugs here for ten times what is paid in other countries for the same compound, because insurance will pay it. The prices are justified to cover their R&D costs, because no one can live without a cure for Restless Leg Syndrome, Low-T, or any of the other made-up ailments about which we are supposed to "ask our doctor." The truth is that in their rush to be the first to market, pharmaceutical companies pay for full scale trials of huge numbers of drugs that turn out to be neither safe nor effective, instead of taking the slower but massively less expensive route of small preliminary trials. It's far easier to make up ailments for drugs that make it through the process than it is to create drugs from scratch that treat something we care about.
The next biggest chunk goes to defense contractors to develop advanced weapons that will never be needed, perform studies that show we need them, build computer and communications systems to control them, and (increasingly) provide private soldiers to supplement our depleted armed forces. We burn tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of gallons of fuel per day to drop $20,000 bombs from $50 million dollar airplanes onto sheep herders and farmers who live mostly without electricity. Increasingly, this work is done by fighter pilots in bunkers in the U.S. flying unmanned drones a world away. The percentage of our country's defense budget that goes to soldiers and their families is pitifully small.
For that matter, why is it only about money? Surveys and studies consistently find that -- beyond a certain subsistence level -- money is not what makes people happy. It's family, and fellowship, and good health. Safe streets and good schools. Culture, nature, and a sense of belonging. Why aren't we pursuing these things as a nation, as well as economic growth?
Please ask yourself these questions. I would love to hear any answers that don't involve personal insults or vague cultural stereotypes. Just don't call me a liberal.
* I'm disgusted enough at the stuff they do let people feed us. Mechanically separated chicken anyone? I would hate to think what would happen if government were much smaller. Also, before the Civil War, every railroad company laid tracks of whatever size fit their own locomotives. It was only possible to drive to the edge of their territory without moving everything to a different train.
It seems that every time I get into a discussion with more rightward-leaning friends or acquaintances, or witness such a discussion secondhand, the phrase "you liberals are all the same" will eventually be fired, turning the discourse from the topic at hand to a question of ideology. Of course, in this case the ideological divide is pre-framed between patriotic, God-fearing Americans who believe people should take responsibility for their actions and live within their means, and homosexual socialist muslim-atheist abortion peddlers who want to drown us all in crack babies, taxes, and bureaucratic red tape. An extreme -- though sadly not unique -- example appeared yesterday on weather.com in the comments to an article on the Texas drought.
 |
| As you can see, reactionary idiotic rudeness is not limited to any single political viewpoint. |
This is usually the point at which I disengage from the conversation. But just to be on the record, I want to state unequivocally that I am not a "liberal." Yes, it's true that I am happy that government exists, that they make sure our railroad tracks are all the same size, and that no one feeds us dog meat and calls it beef.* I believe in liberal ideals like "science" and "education," and I somehow manage to see the economy as a part of our environment, instead of the other way around. I like roads, and bridges, and schools, and I think I'm glad they are not all built and controlled by private companies. At least not yet.
Speaking of roads, bridges, and schools, people build fortunes using our public roads and bridges, the government-developed internet, and labor from our public schools, colleges, and universities. Their overseas interests are protected by our federally funded armed forces. I take some issue with those same people acting like they did it all themselves, and that any attempt to reclaim some of their profits to continue funding that infrastructure is somehow immoral.
And admittedly I find it a little difficult to blame all of our problems on the poor. True, they did trick the banks into signing them up for those subprime mortgages and ruin our economy, but I think that may have been a lucky shot. Mostly they seem to work hard and die early. Oh, that's right. They clog our emergency rooms and raise health care costs. And fill our privatized prisons. I almost forgot.
On the other hand, I'm okay living in an armed society, but I don't try to kid myself into thinking that it makes us safer. I think people should work if they can, though I also think it would be great if we could help create jobs for those on the edges.
I think government is best that happens closest to the people. I don't believe that government -- especially central government -- should regulate our personal behavior, child-rearing, morality, or religion to the extent that they do. And I'm more than willing to debate what level of social safety net we will provide, and what level of food, shelter, and medical services should be guaranteed to those who cannot afford to pay.
But what part of thinking that government should stay out of people's medical decisions advances the idea of the nanny state? Why is government subsidizing higher populations, crappier food, or overseas companies in my interest as an American? Why is it so patriotic to give away our shared resources to multinational corporations, allow them to do whatever damage they desire exploiting them, and then socialize the cost of cleaning up their mess? And what part of "small government" requires us to maintain a military presence in over 130 countries?
European social democracies -- as we know, the most evil of all forms of government -- tend to have taxes about twice as high as what we pay (or are supposed to pay) in the U.S. But every business owner knows what they are getting in exchange for that money. They don't have to pay health insurance premiums. They don't pay for retirement benefits or disability insurance. They don't pay separately for infrastructure that the government provides. They pay less for well qualified workers than comparable American companies, even though the cost of living is higher.
What do we get in return for our tax money? The biggest chunk goes to hospitals and doctors who work around the clock to help eighty-eight year olds survive to be eighty-eight and a half. It goes to pharmaceutical companies that sell drugs here for ten times what is paid in other countries for the same compound, because insurance will pay it. The prices are justified to cover their R&D costs, because no one can live without a cure for Restless Leg Syndrome, Low-T, or any of the other made-up ailments about which we are supposed to "ask our doctor." The truth is that in their rush to be the first to market, pharmaceutical companies pay for full scale trials of huge numbers of drugs that turn out to be neither safe nor effective, instead of taking the slower but massively less expensive route of small preliminary trials. It's far easier to make up ailments for drugs that make it through the process than it is to create drugs from scratch that treat something we care about.
The next biggest chunk goes to defense contractors to develop advanced weapons that will never be needed, perform studies that show we need them, build computer and communications systems to control them, and (increasingly) provide private soldiers to supplement our depleted armed forces. We burn tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of gallons of fuel per day to drop $20,000 bombs from $50 million dollar airplanes onto sheep herders and farmers who live mostly without electricity. Increasingly, this work is done by fighter pilots in bunkers in the U.S. flying unmanned drones a world away. The percentage of our country's defense budget that goes to soldiers and their families is pitifully small.
For that matter, why is it only about money? Surveys and studies consistently find that -- beyond a certain subsistence level -- money is not what makes people happy. It's family, and fellowship, and good health. Safe streets and good schools. Culture, nature, and a sense of belonging. Why aren't we pursuing these things as a nation, as well as economic growth?
Please ask yourself these questions. I would love to hear any answers that don't involve personal insults or vague cultural stereotypes. Just don't call me a liberal.
* I'm disgusted enough at the stuff they do let people feed us. Mechanically separated chicken anyone? I would hate to think what would happen if government were much smaller. Also, before the Civil War, every railroad company laid tracks of whatever size fit their own locomotives. It was only possible to drive to the edge of their territory without moving everything to a different train.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Travel and terror
There is an excellent opinion piece by Roger Cohen in the New York Times this morning that mirrors many of my recent thoughts on the growth of Homeland Security and the TSA. If you are like 80% of Americans, then your attitude probably echoes most of my friends, somewhere along the lines of, "I'm willing to be scanned, and patted down, and all the rest, if it will keep terrorists off my plane." To some extent, I would agree.
There are only two problems with this attitude. First, it probably won't keep terrorists off your airplane. Mostly because there probably aren't going to be any terrorists on your plane. But also because each new layer of security is a response to the latest threat, and it's just added to all of the previous layers. At the same time, our enemies have already moved on to a new plan. They may be evil and/or crazy, but they are generally not stupid.
It is telling that security officials in Britain and Israel, arguably two of the best countries at securing transportation resources, have been critical of the TSA's approach. The idea that technology and procedures can be 100% effective against a suicidal human enemy is dangerously flawed, and creates a money pit into which billions upon billions of dollars will inevitably flow.
The second problem is more fundamental to the nature of the conflict. Life is 100% fatal. We can't choose whether to die, but we can choose how we live. And the United States was built on the idea that individual liberty is an "inalienable right" worth spending lives to defend.
Surrendering our liberties to protect our freedoms makes about as much sense as it sounds like it does. This is exactly what terrorists want. That's why they call them that. If they can disrupt our lives and make us afraid, then they have succeeded. It was never about how many people they could kill.
As Cohen writes, "America is a nation of openness, boldness and risk-taking. Close this nation, cow it, constrict it and you unravel its magic." Moreover, I personally believe that allowing a few wackos on the other side of the world to disrupt our lives and commerce in order to achieve some impossible guarantee of personal safety disrespects the sacrifices being made by our soldiers every day. The best way to support our troops is to be prepared to absorb a tiny bit of the risk they face. Have we really become so timid?
There are only two problems with this attitude. First, it probably won't keep terrorists off your airplane. Mostly because there probably aren't going to be any terrorists on your plane. But also because each new layer of security is a response to the latest threat, and it's just added to all of the previous layers. At the same time, our enemies have already moved on to a new plan. They may be evil and/or crazy, but they are generally not stupid.
It is telling that security officials in Britain and Israel, arguably two of the best countries at securing transportation resources, have been critical of the TSA's approach. The idea that technology and procedures can be 100% effective against a suicidal human enemy is dangerously flawed, and creates a money pit into which billions upon billions of dollars will inevitably flow.
The second problem is more fundamental to the nature of the conflict. Life is 100% fatal. We can't choose whether to die, but we can choose how we live. And the United States was built on the idea that individual liberty is an "inalienable right" worth spending lives to defend.
Surrendering our liberties to protect our freedoms makes about as much sense as it sounds like it does. This is exactly what terrorists want. That's why they call them that. If they can disrupt our lives and make us afraid, then they have succeeded. It was never about how many people they could kill.
As Cohen writes, "America is a nation of openness, boldness and risk-taking. Close this nation, cow it, constrict it and you unravel its magic." Moreover, I personally believe that allowing a few wackos on the other side of the world to disrupt our lives and commerce in order to achieve some impossible guarantee of personal safety disrespects the sacrifices being made by our soldiers every day. The best way to support our troops is to be prepared to absorb a tiny bit of the risk they face. Have we really become so timid?
And is this really the best use of our shared resources? Terrorists on airplanes have killed around 3000 Americans in the past decade, depending on how one wants to count. About twice that many American soldiers have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In that same period, around one hundred and fifty thousand people in the U.S. were victims of homicide. Should we expand our security procedures to the rest of our society? Would you be willing to submit to current TSA security procedures at the mall, your church, the local stadium, or your child's school?
I spent a good part of my career working with Federal bureaucracies, and I can see where this TSA thing is headed. I doubt if there is a silver bullet solution to this problem, but I know the way we're going will result mostly in more expense, more inconvenience, and very little increase in protection. And it's past time we started the conversation.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
April Fools
I have a pretty good sense of humor. At least as far as I can tell.* I've been known to crack wise, I laugh at good slapstick and smile appreciatively at more cerebral humor, I can remember about one out of a hundred jokes I hear for at least twelve hours, and perhaps most importantly, I can usually laugh at myself when required.
One area where my sense of humor is completely lacking is in the area of practical jokes. I don't know what it is, but I can never come up with a good prank. I never even think to try. And I usually fall for them when people play them on me. Someone gets me every April Fool's Day, even though by now you would think I would see it coming. And I always feel foolish, which I gather is the desired reaction.
In my defense, I know some pretty funny people. They have been known to super-glue receivers to telephones, cover the sensors of optical mice with tiny pieces of Scotch tape, smash eggs on people after blowing out the yolk, and wrap every object in a room with aluminum foil. The Wife even has her own seltzer bottle. Last April first, some friends who had been dating for almost ten years announced their engagement on Facebook. I knew they had been looking at houses, and they had me at "Hey, everybody!"
So obviously, this post is about politics. I avoid writing about politics when I can. I find most people either don't know that much about whatever particular thing is being discussed, or they have their own (sometimes very strong) opinion. If they don't know it's usually intentional -- a wise and legitimate personal choice -- and if they have an opinion I'm not likely to change it. So the only time that a political discussion is normally enjoyable is when we agree, and I have better ways to spend my time than congratulating myself on the wisdom of my beliefs. **
Occasionally the background noise gets too loud, or something comes up that is too outrageous. and I just have to say something. And what I have to say in this case is not that Obama is the devil, or that Palin is a succubus, or anything about Wall Street and Main Street. I want to talk about the tone of political discourse.
Apparently, thirty percent of the people in the United States are convinced that another thirty percent are evildoers trying to destroy our nation. And vice-versa. Seriously. What I believe is that a significant part of the remaining forty percent sort of think that you're all getting a little overly dramatic and self-indulgent, and you're kind of pissing us off. As I recall, that was one of the main reasons people gave for voting for hopey-changey guy. I know enough people along the political spectrum to know that the vast majority of U.S. citizens love the country and want to make it better. We just disagree on methods and priorities.
The only thing people seem to be able to agree on is that our government is broken, yet they don't seem to want to talk about it with the people they hired to do the job. I have been struck lately by how many people preach personal responsibility, and in the next breath talk about how other people need to change. Apparently, there are a lot of people who don't know what that term means. Given the state of our educational system, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
So I have a suggestion. If you have a beef with what is going on in Washington, please contact the people who are paid to represent you there. If you don't get satisfaction from them, work as hard as you can to get them fired. That's how it's supposed to work. The rest of this foolishness is just going to end up getting people killed.
A better way to express political activism or concern is probably at the State level, or even in your local community, but that's a topic for the next time I'm too frustrated to keep my mouth shut.
* Hopefully, I'm not one of those people who spends all their time defending their absolute lack of a sense of humor by proclaiming what a great sense of humor they have. Or the kind who always hears, "You're so funny," when what people really mean is, "That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life."
**Shut up.
One area where my sense of humor is completely lacking is in the area of practical jokes. I don't know what it is, but I can never come up with a good prank. I never even think to try. And I usually fall for them when people play them on me. Someone gets me every April Fool's Day, even though by now you would think I would see it coming. And I always feel foolish, which I gather is the desired reaction.
In my defense, I know some pretty funny people. They have been known to super-glue receivers to telephones, cover the sensors of optical mice with tiny pieces of Scotch tape, smash eggs on people after blowing out the yolk, and wrap every object in a room with aluminum foil. The Wife even has her own seltzer bottle. Last April first, some friends who had been dating for almost ten years announced their engagement on Facebook. I knew they had been looking at houses, and they had me at "Hey, everybody!"
So obviously, this post is about politics. I avoid writing about politics when I can. I find most people either don't know that much about whatever particular thing is being discussed, or they have their own (sometimes very strong) opinion. If they don't know it's usually intentional -- a wise and legitimate personal choice -- and if they have an opinion I'm not likely to change it. So the only time that a political discussion is normally enjoyable is when we agree, and I have better ways to spend my time than congratulating myself on the wisdom of my beliefs. **
Occasionally the background noise gets too loud, or something comes up that is too outrageous. and I just have to say something. And what I have to say in this case is not that Obama is the devil, or that Palin is a succubus, or anything about Wall Street and Main Street. I want to talk about the tone of political discourse.
Apparently, thirty percent of the people in the United States are convinced that another thirty percent are evildoers trying to destroy our nation. And vice-versa. Seriously. What I believe is that a significant part of the remaining forty percent sort of think that you're all getting a little overly dramatic and self-indulgent, and you're kind of pissing us off. As I recall, that was one of the main reasons people gave for voting for hopey-changey guy. I know enough people along the political spectrum to know that the vast majority of U.S. citizens love the country and want to make it better. We just disagree on methods and priorities.
The only thing people seem to be able to agree on is that our government is broken, yet they don't seem to want to talk about it with the people they hired to do the job. I have been struck lately by how many people preach personal responsibility, and in the next breath talk about how other people need to change. Apparently, there are a lot of people who don't know what that term means. Given the state of our educational system, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
So I have a suggestion. If you have a beef with what is going on in Washington, please contact the people who are paid to represent you there. If you don't get satisfaction from them, work as hard as you can to get them fired. That's how it's supposed to work. The rest of this foolishness is just going to end up getting people killed.
A better way to express political activism or concern is probably at the State level, or even in your local community, but that's a topic for the next time I'm too frustrated to keep my mouth shut.
* Hopefully, I'm not one of those people who spends all their time defending their absolute lack of a sense of humor by proclaiming what a great sense of humor they have. Or the kind who always hears, "You're so funny," when what people really mean is, "That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life."
**Shut up.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Breaking 80
Richard Nixon was possibly our least athletic president. About the only exercise he ever got was playing golf, which he took up during his stint as vice-president, reputedly as a way to spend more time with his boss, Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon's swing was awkward and his golf clothes never fit well. He never shot under 100 as vice-president, but was dogged in his efforts to improve. He played quite a bit during his first term as president, less in his second, and more after his forced retirement.
Nixon wasn't a particularly fastidious follower of the rules, but he worked hard and steadily improved. One day in 1978 he shot a 79, at a course in San Clemente he described as "relatively easy." He had always considered a score of 80 to be a sort of "personal Everest." Knowing that he could not hope to improve on that score, and probably never match it, he never picked up a golf club again.
Picture from here
I may have watched my last professional football game.
Nixon wasn't a particularly fastidious follower of the rules, but he worked hard and steadily improved. One day in 1978 he shot a 79, at a course in San Clemente he described as "relatively easy." He had always considered a score of 80 to be a sort of "personal Everest." Knowing that he could not hope to improve on that score, and probably never match it, he never picked up a golf club again.
I may have watched my last professional football game.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
After the Crash
So, we watched A Crude Awakening last night. I probably should have learned my lesson from reading the food book, but I'm trying to anticipate the right moment to convert my 401K to canned goods and ammunition. The film gives a pretty early impression of being a Chicken Little hatchet job by people who hate America,* and that impression never completely one hundred percent goes away. But there's math, and graphs, and this dude that sort of reminds me of Ross Perot, with a cartoon voice and a bunch of graphs, who apparently predicted that America would stop being the world's top oil producer in about 1970.
People thought he was a nut job. Actually, he kind of seemed like a nut job. But he was right. And intercut between some hilarious old films about how great oil is for civilization, a bunch of old guys with chicken necks and pretty good credentials lay out some pretty disturbing facts. The two most disturbing facts are that oil production is very unlikely to ever increase significantly ever again, and that demand will grow by almost an order of magnitude over the next 20 years. Oh, the third disturbing thing is that the old film strips are right -- practically everything in our modern civilization is built on the assumption that oil is plentiful and cheap.
So, great. I'm not convinced that it's time to cash out, but I may start building some shelves for the canned goods.
Happy New Year!
_______________________________
* This group includes liberals, environmentalists, vegetarians, anyone who wears sandals, democrats, socialists, gays, muslims, people from New England and the poor.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Michael Moore Part 2
I have gotten mixed feedback for calling Michael Moore a douchebag earlier, both in this blog and in conversations with friends and colleagues. I have to confess that this was a bit of a social experiment. My point was supposed to be that propaganda and the people who create it are the enemies of the type of critical thinking and reasonable discourse on which democracies thrive, and frankly I thought I might get a more reasonable response if I started by picking on Michael Moore than if I titled the post something like, "Fox News is Satan".
I was mostly right about the feedback. While I have gotten some agreement from those who tend to disagree with Moore's positions, most people have responded with gentle reminders that the situation may not be quite as simple as perhaps I painted it.
Michael Moore represents to me the worst of what can happen when someone lets their agenda overtake their integrity. But he also brings several things to the table that many of his detractors lack. First, he is an indisputably talented filmmaker. Roger and Me was brilliant, especially for a first time writer/director with very little training. It also exhibited Moore's tendency to push the envelope of documentary film-making convention to maximize emotional effect. His films routinely break viewing records -- set by his earlier films -- for documentaries. My own film credentials include a seven minute vampire movie I made in high school, so I feel entirely qualified to criticize this guy.
Michael Moore represents to me the worst of what can happen when someone lets their agenda overtake their integrity. But he also brings several things to the table that many of his detractors lack. First, he is an indisputably talented filmmaker. Roger and Me was brilliant, especially for a first time writer/director with very little training. It also exhibited Moore's tendency to push the envelope of documentary film-making convention to maximize emotional effect. His films routinely break viewing records -- set by his earlier films -- for documentaries. My own film credentials include a seven minute vampire movie I made in high school, so I feel entirely qualified to criticize this guy.
Michael Moore also tells stories that need to be told. In what has become essentially a one-party political system*, he dares to question the ultimate supremacy of economic growth as the single driver of our society. (That's a topic for another post.) And what Michael Moore does for a living requires a lot more talent, vision and planning than sitting around calling people names, which seems to be all that the most popular opposition figures seem to have the talent to do.
In the end, I guess it is more fair and balanced for both sides to be telling lies and half-truths, and for us to try to listen to all of them, than to continue to fight fear-mongering with reasoning. But I still don't think it's good for us, and it really aggravates me. I definitely have to stop watching the news.
_________________________
* The Capitalist party. The two sides are more or less aligned with those who lend money (capitalists) and those who borrow it from them (industry and consumers).
Monday, October 19, 2009
Pushmi-pullyu
Ben Bernanke gave a speech today about how America's trade deficit played a role in creating the financial crisis, and how once trade starts up again, it will probably go back to playing the same old role, unless somebody does something about it. As for America's part, now that the big banks are back to making money hand over iron fist, the Fed Chairman says we should really work on reducing our budget deficit.
None of this is new or surprising, except when he recommended that Asian nations help by getting their own people to buy their crappy products instead of shipping them to us. Bernanke suggested that one way for countries like China to do this was to increase spending on social programs like education and health care, thereby allowing people to save less and spend more. This is essentially the opposite of what the capitalist crowd would like to see happen in Washington, which makes sense given that we are on the opposite end of the cheap money. Except that many of these same people have talked about how important it is to get Americans borrowing and spending again. Maybe now that so many of the jobs are overseas, we have decided that consumption should follow.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Food, glorious food
A few years ago I went on the South Beach Diet. It was a great diet, the food was yummy, I lost a bunch of weight, and I should be on it right now, but it forbids drinking for the first two weeks and it's football season. Besides the weight I lost, I noticed three things about the diet:
1. I had to go to the grocery store all the damn time.
2. It was expensive and took time out of my day.
3. The only things I bought from the middle of the store were spices and sugar free Jello Pudding.
It turns out that this is not an accident.
My brother persuaded me to read The Omnivore's Dilemma a few months ago, and now I kind of feel like kicking his ass for making me want to be a farmer. And a hunter, and possibly a mushroom gatherer. (Not that I've never gathered a mushroom before, but that's a completely different subject.) If you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it. It's not really like The Jungle, or Diet for a New America -- the type of book that will gross you out to the point that you never want to eat again. It's more like Super Size Me: Behind the Music. The author builds a compelling case that the American food industry is a perfect storm of government waste, corporate greed, environmental irresponsibility and petroleum use, and that we are all paying the price.
1. I had to go to the grocery store all the damn time.
2. It was expensive and took time out of my day.
3. The only things I bought from the middle of the store were spices and sugar free Jello Pudding.
It turns out that this is not an accident.
My brother persuaded me to read The Omnivore's Dilemma a few months ago, and now I kind of feel like kicking his ass for making me want to be a farmer. And a hunter, and possibly a mushroom gatherer. (Not that I've never gathered a mushroom before, but that's a completely different subject.) If you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it. It's not really like The Jungle, or Diet for a New America -- the type of book that will gross you out to the point that you never want to eat again. It's more like Super Size Me: Behind the Music. The author builds a compelling case that the American food industry is a perfect storm of government waste, corporate greed, environmental irresponsibility and petroleum use, and that we are all paying the price.
American food has been industrialized and commodotized so that it is cheap to produce, easy to transport, easy to store and easy to sell. Note that taste, nutrition and cultural considerations do not appear on the list. Would it surprise you to know that "natural raspberry flavoring" probably has no part of a raspberry in it? It surprised me.
The New York Times reported recently that the new Smart Choices food labeling program, which features a green check mark on the front of packaging so that busy consumers can know what is good for them even if their Mom is not there, considers Froot Loops to be sufficiently healthful to earn the mark. Defended by the President of the Smart Choices Board because its better than doughnuts, Froot Loops made the cut due to its added vitamins, and because the total sugars don't exceed the program guidelines.
She also said the program was influenced by research into consumer behavior that showed that, while shoppers wanted more information, they did not want to hear negative messages or feel their choices were being dictated to them. So in other words, we want to buy what we were going to buy anyway but feel like it is good for us. I mean, come on. I've eaten my share of Cocoa Puffs, but I never tried to convince myself they were health food.
The New York Times reported recently that the new Smart Choices food labeling program, which features a green check mark on the front of packaging so that busy consumers can know what is good for them even if their Mom is not there, considers Froot Loops to be sufficiently healthful to earn the mark. Defended by the President of the Smart Choices Board because its better than doughnuts, Froot Loops made the cut due to its added vitamins, and because the total sugars don't exceed the program guidelines.
She also said the program was influenced by research into consumer behavior that showed that, while shoppers wanted more information, they did not want to hear negative messages or feel their choices were being dictated to them. So in other words, we want to buy what we were going to buy anyway but feel like it is good for us. I mean, come on. I've eaten my share of Cocoa Puffs, but I never tried to convince myself they were health food.
Apparently, one big driving force behind all of this is a system of government subsidies that pays farmers to produce more corn, and to a lesser degree, soybeans. While this sounds like a good thing for farmers, it actually drives the price of these commodity grains ever lower, putting the dwindling number of farmers deeper in debt. The only people who really benefit are food manufacturers like Cargill, ADM and General Mills. The current system of farm subsidies has been in place since Earl Butz*, Nixon's Agriculture Secretary, reversed the government's policy on farm subsidies and told family farmers to "get big or get out."
So is there any benefit to all this? Well, remember my list from the South Beach Diet?
1. Whole food is bulky and it spoils. Industrial food is compact, stable and keeps for a long time.
2. Whole food is not really more expensive to grow, but subsidies and cheap petroleum make industrial food ingredients (in the form of corn) cheaper to buy than "real" food can be grown.
3. Industry means growth, so manufacturers have to find new things to sell to get us to buy more and eat more. There is very little unprocessed food in an American supermarket. This leads to innovation and ever cheaper food.
There is a lot of evidence that the industrialization of food is at least partially responsible for many of the health problems that Americans suffer more than others in the world. And there is no question that it costs all of us in the form of taxes, petroleum use and environmental damage. It's up to each of us to decide if the trade-off is worth it. As for me, I'm making my own bread, shopping more at the farmer's market, and trying to think more about what I eat.
_______________________
* Butz eventually got fired for telling an extremely (unfunny and) racist joke to a reporter on an airplane. This has to throw his judgment into question, if nothing else.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Michael Moore is a douchebag
In the interest of full disclosure, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's movies, and I consider Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to be bigger Dickensians than Michael Moore could ever hope to be. For me, it's not primarily Michael Moore's politics that make him a sack. He does seem to be trying to watch out for the little guy. I am descended from construction people and farmers, and many of my relatives still work with their hands in conditions that are much worse than what I enjoy, so I can respect the belief that working people need more government protection than, say, billionaires. And to some degree, I think Michael Moore came by his outrage honestly, where Limbaugh and Beck seem to have cobbled together their attitudes primarily from racism, willful ignorance, leftover teenage resentment and an overactive sense of accomplishment. Also, maybe ratings and pain medication play in there somewhere. Every time I hear someone complain about how hard it is to be a rich white guy in America, I want to stick a fork in my eye.
My main problem with Michael Moore -- as well as the Fox News crowd -- is that he is a propagandist. I will call them as goebbelers, since I haven't made up a word yet this week. My aim in politics -- to the extent that I have one -- is to view our society as a system, and to identify and address core issues that are making the system act in a way that we find undesirable. The goebbelers are intent on doing something completely different. They want to find some single aspect of a particular issue that they can cast in a popular light, and then try to make that aspect the central issue of the debate. In this way, their side wins, the other side loses, and we can all celebrate good times.
The problem is that this behavior takes us farther from a real solution to the original issue, and degrades our ability to think rationally. For example, I saw Michael Moore on a morning show this week arguing that capitalism is the opposite of democracy. I saw a sign from a Tea Party protest last week that said something about not cutting Medicare to create socialized medicine. While arguments -- however weak -- could be made for the validity of both sentiments, this kind of discourse is just making things worse. The worst thing about the Big Lie is not that it will be believed; it is that it makes future lies easier to swallow.
Take health care as an example. First, we're talking about medical care, not health care. And the question we need to answer as a society is whether we consider access to medical care to be a civil right, like due process, or whether medicine is a commodity like food, available to those who can afford it? Or is it somewhere in between, a part of the social contract, like voting? Answering this question honestly would clear up a lot of the implementation details, as well as telling us what to do about medical malpractice.
But questions like these are difficult, and require people to honestly pick a position on issues that matter. I mean, no politician wants to come out and say that poor people shouldn't get medicine, so they tell us that Americans deserve the best care, which can only be delivered by private industry working for profit. I'm not sure what makes us think we deserve the best just because we're American, but there you have it. On the other side, giving everyone access to medical care means that there will be limits to what can be provided, and we are already providing more than we can afford. Medicare does a good job containing costs and providing full service, but it's going broke at a frightening pace. If you dissect any single point that anyone is making in the current debate, you will almost certainly find it to be inaccurate, irrelevant or something that is already true.
If we continue to treat politics as a competitive sport, with sound bites used to score points, I'm afraid personal responsibility will continue to erode and our government will continue in the direction that virtually everyone agrees is not where we want it to go. On the other hand, people seem to enjoy it. Who am I to spoil their fun?
My main problem with Michael Moore -- as well as the Fox News crowd -- is that he is a propagandist. I will call them as goebbelers, since I haven't made up a word yet this week. My aim in politics -- to the extent that I have one -- is to view our society as a system, and to identify and address core issues that are making the system act in a way that we find undesirable. The goebbelers are intent on doing something completely different. They want to find some single aspect of a particular issue that they can cast in a popular light, and then try to make that aspect the central issue of the debate. In this way, their side wins, the other side loses, and we can all celebrate good times.
The problem is that this behavior takes us farther from a real solution to the original issue, and degrades our ability to think rationally. For example, I saw Michael Moore on a morning show this week arguing that capitalism is the opposite of democracy. I saw a sign from a Tea Party protest last week that said something about not cutting Medicare to create socialized medicine. While arguments -- however weak -- could be made for the validity of both sentiments, this kind of discourse is just making things worse. The worst thing about the Big Lie is not that it will be believed; it is that it makes future lies easier to swallow.
Take health care as an example. First, we're talking about medical care, not health care. And the question we need to answer as a society is whether we consider access to medical care to be a civil right, like due process, or whether medicine is a commodity like food, available to those who can afford it? Or is it somewhere in between, a part of the social contract, like voting? Answering this question honestly would clear up a lot of the implementation details, as well as telling us what to do about medical malpractice.
But questions like these are difficult, and require people to honestly pick a position on issues that matter. I mean, no politician wants to come out and say that poor people shouldn't get medicine, so they tell us that Americans deserve the best care, which can only be delivered by private industry working for profit. I'm not sure what makes us think we deserve the best just because we're American, but there you have it. On the other side, giving everyone access to medical care means that there will be limits to what can be provided, and we are already providing more than we can afford. Medicare does a good job containing costs and providing full service, but it's going broke at a frightening pace. If you dissect any single point that anyone is making in the current debate, you will almost certainly find it to be inaccurate, irrelevant or something that is already true.
If we continue to treat politics as a competitive sport, with sound bites used to score points, I'm afraid personal responsibility will continue to erode and our government will continue in the direction that virtually everyone agrees is not where we want it to go. On the other hand, people seem to enjoy it. Who am I to spoil their fun?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Caribou Barbie -- now with "enhanced fairness" technology
Several of my friends have been taking a "Sarah Palin 2012" poll on Facebook recently, where one is asked to respond to the question, "Would you vote for Sarah Palin if she ran for President in 2012?"
Apparently, if you answer "Never" the vote registers as "Yes." I think I'm starting to get a better understanding of poll numbers.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Heritage
I grew up in the Civil Rights South. I was born a few years after Brown vs. Board of Education set the course of American schools (for better and worse), and a few years before the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act effectively ended state-sponsored segregation. I don't remember ever seeing whites only drinking fountains, or "don't let the sun set on your head in this town" billboards, but I know they were around when I was little. This, and the Vietnam War, were the backdrop for my childhood*.
The civil rights movement ignited a sort of civil cold war in the South, almost exactly a century after the real Civil War, once again pitting neighbor against neighbor and dividing families. The only time in my life that my father ever slapped my face was when I spoke the n-word in his house. I was six or seven, and relaying a message from a neighbor boy to my older brother. I took it as an unambiguous declaration of which side our family was taking in the conflict.
My father was a general contractor in those days, and employed men based on the quality of their work and the cost of their labor, without any seeming regard for race. If anything, I think he may have been running his own little affirmative action program, though it would have been more for pragmatic reasons than ideals. There is a persistent family rumor that my great-great-grandfather owned a single slave, and that one of his descendants (who shares our family name) became a prominent civil rights activist. Most of my family stories are apocryphal (to be kind), so I don't set much store in this one. One family trait I have retained is the belief that one should never let the facts stand in the way of a good story. I mean, the man and his accomplishments are real. He has a freeway named after him. It is only his relationship to my family that is in question.
In his later years, my father's insecurity, the deterioration and violence that were overtaking the city he loved, his new family, and (I suspect) his upbringing led him away from some of the principles he taught me. It was small things really, offhand comments and ill-informed remarks. Still, it was a profound disappointment to me, and I took it as a stark warning that age and fear can rob us of more than our health and future. In the end it seemed that he defeated whatever doubts had plagued him, and he dedicated much of the last year of his life to helping an African-American community near my hometown. I take that as an even stronger reminder that it's never too late to reclaim what is important.
I attended six different public schools, including a year at Horace Mann, a traditionally black high school that had been converted to a junior high as part of the school desegregation plan. I rode a bus 45 minutes each way to school, and made some lifelong friends. I will be the first to admit that the quality of education at Horace Mann was not equal to the schools I had attended previously, but I learned a lot about survival. A long time family friend -- now a judge -- was small for his age and suffered some form of violence almost daily.
In the end, it was abandonment that destroyed our public schools, and contributed to a host of our society's current ills. As whites fled first the schools and then the neighborhoods and cities, we returned to separate and unequal, except now the division was as much economic and ideological as it was racial. The poll tax was replaced by private school tuition, and interstate highways provided the separation that Jim Crow laws no longer could. I'm not implying that the people who left were wrong. They did what they believed to be best for their families. But the cumulative results are undeniable.
In addition to the cultural and civic and traffic problems that resulted, I believe these changes accelerated a fragmentation of our society that was already in progress. When I was a small child, our city park had a municipal pool set among the zoo, a golf course and a few permanent rides and other attractions. Of course, I never really noticed that everyone there was white, but as soon as that changed, many people stopped bringing their children to the city pool. Subdivisions with their own, private swimming pools began to spring up seemingly from nowhere. Within a few years the city pool was closed for good, and the great meeting place of children from across the city was replaced with a few dozen isolated descendants. My father was either unwilling or unable to join one of the local developments' pools, so he built his own, an enormous blue boomerang that did wonders for my high school popularity, at least in the warmer months.
Did we move too quickly to end the injustice of segregation? Too timidly? Is there some way we could have avoided the problems that have resulted, while still reaping the benefits? Would it have been better (or worse) if children had not so often served on the front lines of this war? Frankly, I don't know and I don't think it's important any more. We are where we are. I live in a city with a majority white population and an African-American mayor. The arguments of racism have evolved (mostly) from race to culture, which is not where we want to be, but you would know it's a lot if you grew up when and where I did. Still, we may have a "post-racial" President, but I am sure we have not yet achieved a post-racial society. And the rising Latino population will bring new challenges to our country's ability to be the "great melting pot of humanity" that I learned about in school.
School busing and forced desegregation are ending now throughout the South, and state-sponsored discrimination is mostly a thing of the past. It's time to tackle the problems that were created -- or at least exacerbated -- by the steps that were taken to address a great injustice. But we can't go back, and I would be heartbroken if our haste to find solutions led us to give up any of the ground that so many suffered to win.
_____________________
* It's no wonder music was so important to us.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Have we ever seen these two together?
From a New York Times article today on Hilary Clinton showing support for the new government of Somalia:
"Mrs. Clinton said* that the battle for Somalia, which has been the lawless home to Islamist extremists, terrorists, gun runners, drug smugglers, teenage gunmen and even pirates for the past 18 years, is deeply connected to American interests."
Does this remind anyone but me of Hedley Lamar's speech in Blazing Saddles?
"I want rustlers, cutthroats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con-men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull-dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, and Methodists!**"
I guess life -- or at least journalism -- does imitate art. Or maybe Harvey Korman faked his death and is secretly running Somalia.
___________________________
* It's not clear from the article whether Mrs. Clinton actually said all that stuff about the terrorists and pirates and teenage ghosts. But I thought it was funny.
** This sounds a little bit like my old neighborhood.
"Mrs. Clinton said* that the battle for Somalia, which has been the lawless home to Islamist extremists, terrorists, gun runners, drug smugglers, teenage gunmen and even pirates for the past 18 years, is deeply connected to American interests."
Does this remind anyone but me of Hedley Lamar's speech in Blazing Saddles?
"I want rustlers, cutthroats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con-men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull-dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, and Methodists!**"
I guess life -- or at least journalism -- does imitate art. Or maybe Harvey Korman faked his death and is secretly running Somalia.
___________________________
* It's not clear from the article whether Mrs. Clinton actually said all that stuff about the terrorists and pirates and teenage ghosts. But I thought it was funny.
** This sounds a little bit like my old neighborhood.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Maybe we should have gotten the credit insurance
Last weekend we watched I.O.U.S.A, and let me just say that if you are a citizen of these United States you must watch this movie. I'll wait.
No? Can't find room in your queue between Mamma Mia!, Get Smart, Knocked Up and Season 4 of Weeds? Yeah, I know. It's got pie charts and shit. It's not exactly Transformers. Okay, I'll give you the short version. Our national finances are in much worse shape than anyone will admit, it's getting worse faster than ever, and no one is doing a damned thing about it. And it's not just that you won't have any Social Security when you get old. In some unknown but relatively short amount of time the old rock solid American dollar may become worth about as much as a Columbian peso, which is not much at all. If you happen to see an Arab or Canadian or Chinese person snooping around your neighborhood in the next few years, don't panic. They are probably just checking out their new property.
I don't usually like to talk about politics, because no one wants to argue about the right stuff. But it doesn't really matter what party you're in. These guys pretty much blast everyone since Truman, and the only person who comes out of this looking like he knows what he's talking about is Ron Paul. But I'm still not voting for him. Maybe the craziest part of the whole thing is that they interview like a hundred politicians and none of them even try to deny that it's happening. They all really seem to feel powerless to do anything.
Oh, well. I guess it's always something. Enjoy the rest of Paul Blart: Mall Cop. In the meantime, I think I'm going to call my broker* and tell him to move all my money** to ammo and canned goods. Although Wobbler always recommended coffee and cigarettes, on the premise that you can trade those for anything.
________________________
* I don't have a broker. Though it was a financial advisor who told me the ammo and canned goods thing. He used to date my sister. True story.
** I don't actually have any money, either.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Please Don't Shoot Me
In the aftermath of the election, online discussion has turned in some cases from which of the two candidates or parties are better, to an analysis of whether either of the two major political parties represent Joe Glass of Red Wine with Dinner, or whoever happens to be writing/reading a particular blog. Many of these discussions end in the land of Objectivism, the Libertarian Party, or both.
A surprising number of the computer people I know profess Objectivist and Libertarian leanings, and despite the irony of having a group of people banded together to be left alone, I understand their motivation. After all, I'm originally from Arkansas. Hillbilly blood runs in my veins, and I occasionally have to fight the urge to chase someone from my property with a shotgun. Usually it's my neighbor down the street who is clandestinely (he thinks) encouraging his little yippy dog to poop in my yard.
I professed to be a Libertarian myself back in the day, and I may even have voted for their candidate for president back in the 70's. (That whole decade is a bit of blur for me.) But the Libertarians have the same problem that afflicts the two major parties -- their "base".
Every party has what we call a "base", which means "fringe element without which they cannot win elections", as far as I can tell. The Republican base is known as "The Evangelicals", who seem to be people that spend all day in church and are hanging around waiting for God to finally destroy the world so they can go to Heaven (also known as the 1950's). The Democratic base is "The Left". These seem to be people who smoke their clothes and have abortions at every opportunity, and are waiting around for the Republicans to destroy the world so that they can be reincarnated in a world of love and harmony (the 1960's).
The Libertarian base seems to be the KKK, NORML, religious groups who believe the evangelicals are poseurs who are phoning it in, gun nuts, and anyone else who thinks they should not have to pay taxes. While I would be comfortable being associated with at least one of those groups, I can't hang with most of the rest.
The other inconvenient truth that keeps me from being a Libertarian is that it is not the 1830's. Except for a good part of the population of Alaska and a few others, we are not self-reliant pioneers, living off the land and defending ourselves from bears. The world is a complicated and highly interconnected place. Modern life requires an enormous amount of infrastructure, which in turn requires significant government involvement and organization.
So what is a reasonable person to do? There are millions of people who don't believe that Government and Society are the same thing, that individuality is an important component of the Land of the Free, and that our democracy should not be for sale. I don't have the answer, though I think proportional representation may be part of the answer. Whatever it is, it's going to have to start on the local level. We will never have a Libertarian President (or Green Party or Workers Party Animal Rights Party or whatever) until we have congressional representation from those parties. So get out there and organize your friends and try to get elected to something.
One final thought. In the end, we ask for the government we get. When Hurricanes Gustav and Ike blew through our region a couple of months ago, the small government Republicans and Libertarians were lined up with everyone else demanding water, ice and the legendary blue tarps. Congressional earmarks are only evil when they are not going to our State. It's up to each of us to change what we don't like.
I will take up Objectivism another day.
A surprising number of the computer people I know profess Objectivist and Libertarian leanings, and despite the irony of having a group of people banded together to be left alone, I understand their motivation. After all, I'm originally from Arkansas. Hillbilly blood runs in my veins, and I occasionally have to fight the urge to chase someone from my property with a shotgun. Usually it's my neighbor down the street who is clandestinely (he thinks) encouraging his little yippy dog to poop in my yard.
I professed to be a Libertarian myself back in the day, and I may even have voted for their candidate for president back in the 70's. (That whole decade is a bit of blur for me.) But the Libertarians have the same problem that afflicts the two major parties -- their "base".
Every party has what we call a "base", which means "fringe element without which they cannot win elections", as far as I can tell. The Republican base is known as "The Evangelicals", who seem to be people that spend all day in church and are hanging around waiting for God to finally destroy the world so they can go to Heaven (also known as the 1950's). The Democratic base is "The Left". These seem to be people who smoke their clothes and have abortions at every opportunity, and are waiting around for the Republicans to destroy the world so that they can be reincarnated in a world of love and harmony (the 1960's).
The Libertarian base seems to be the KKK, NORML, religious groups who believe the evangelicals are poseurs who are phoning it in, gun nuts, and anyone else who thinks they should not have to pay taxes. While I would be comfortable being associated with at least one of those groups, I can't hang with most of the rest.
The other inconvenient truth that keeps me from being a Libertarian is that it is not the 1830's. Except for a good part of the population of Alaska and a few others, we are not self-reliant pioneers, living off the land and defending ourselves from bears. The world is a complicated and highly interconnected place. Modern life requires an enormous amount of infrastructure, which in turn requires significant government involvement and organization.
So what is a reasonable person to do? There are millions of people who don't believe that Government and Society are the same thing, that individuality is an important component of the Land of the Free, and that our democracy should not be for sale. I don't have the answer, though I think proportional representation may be part of the answer. Whatever it is, it's going to have to start on the local level. We will never have a Libertarian President (or Green Party or Workers Party Animal Rights Party or whatever) until we have congressional representation from those parties. So get out there and organize your friends and try to get elected to something.
One final thought. In the end, we ask for the government we get. When Hurricanes Gustav and Ike blew through our region a couple of months ago, the small government Republicans and Libertarians were lined up with everyone else demanding water, ice and the legendary blue tarps. Congressional earmarks are only evil when they are not going to our State. It's up to each of us to change what we don't like.
I will take up Objectivism another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)