Thursday, April 16, 2009
Inka
Martha Mears has some serious competition.
Listen.
Listen.
Watch.
Watch.
= = = = =
Sidenote: Before the web and especially Youtube came along, there was almost no chance to hear and 'discover' music and movies outside the very narrow temporospatial slot of this week's Top Hits. If you lived in a big city and had lots of spare money, you could occasionally find rare items in a used record store. If you listened to shortwave radio, you could hear obscure foreign music. But those were sporadic opportunities. If you happened to catch the end of one song by Inka Zemánková on Radio Prague, that was all. No more. No way to hear the song again, no way to find others, unless you could afford to travel the world in person.
Printed matter has never suffered the same limitation. Before the web era, if you got interested in late '30s Czech culture, any small-town library would let you check out and read books by Kafka and Čapek. Same for almost any time and place where literature flourished.
Odd, isn't it? Text has been printed for 300 years, globally distributed and catalogued from the very start. (In fact libraries existed long before printing.) Moving images and music have been reproduced for 100 years, but not globally available in library style until just three years ago. ¶ 8:59 PM
Listen.
Listen.
Watch.
Watch.
= = = = =
Sidenote: Before the web and especially Youtube came along, there was almost no chance to hear and 'discover' music and movies outside the very narrow temporospatial slot of this week's Top Hits. If you lived in a big city and had lots of spare money, you could occasionally find rare items in a used record store. If you listened to shortwave radio, you could hear obscure foreign music. But those were sporadic opportunities. If you happened to catch the end of one song by Inka Zemánková on Radio Prague, that was all. No more. No way to hear the song again, no way to find others, unless you could afford to travel the world in person.
Printed matter has never suffered the same limitation. Before the web era, if you got interested in late '30s Czech culture, any small-town library would let you check out and read books by Kafka and Čapek. Same for almost any time and place where literature flourished.
Odd, isn't it? Text has been printed for 300 years, globally distributed and catalogued from the very start. (In fact libraries existed long before printing.) Moving images and music have been reproduced for 100 years, but not globally available in library style until just three years ago. ¶ 8:59 PM
All aboard!
Polistra loves trains. And if Obama is fully serious about his new high-speed rail plan, Polistra loves Obama.
This is the first sign of 'real change', and it looks like a big one! ¶ 3:58 PM
Polistra loves trains. And if Obama is fully serious about his new high-speed rail plan, Polistra loves Obama.
This is the first sign of 'real change', and it looks like a big one! ¶ 3:58 PM
Triumph of the Would
One of the most destructive aspects of today's world is 'virtual news', the replacement of plain facts by speculation. Watch CNN or Fox or CNBC, and you may pick up a genuine fact once every few hours. The lonely little fact is completely overwhelmed by a toxic soup of absolute lies about global warming and economics; computer models predicting disaster based on total falsehood and bad math; free-floating bull sessions posing as "debates"; and medical studies that tell you nothing.
Rush has often -- and accurately -- slashed the cable channels for replacing is with could, and even Saturday Night Live has run a pointed parody.
So you'd think Rush and his colleagues might use some actual facts when stirring the public to action?
Nope. Yesterday's tea parties were complaining about something that could happen. Income tax rates are presently at their lowest point in living memory. Yet the participants were shouting about high taxes.
"Petitioning for redress" supposedly means you're complaining about a genuine grievance, and you're asking the gov't to take steps that it has been refusing to take.
In this case the tea parties are complaining about the nonexistent problem of high taxes, and asking Congress to cut taxes. Well, Congress has been cutting taxes for the last decade, and Congress is always deliriously happy to cut taxes. Nothing is easier.
= = = = =
`Take some more tax,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
`I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.'
`You mean you can't take LESS,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take MORE than nothing.'
`Nobody asked YOUR opinion,' said Alice.
`Then you shouldn't talk,' said the Hatter.
This piece of rudeness was more than Alice could bear: she got up in great disgust, and walked off.
`At any rate I'll never go THERE again!' said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. `It's the stupidest tax-party I ever was at in all my life!'
= = = = =
Seriously: If you really want to protest against tyranny and propose a solution to tyranny, you should be protesting the tyranny of litigation and proposing "loser pays" plus "no punitive damages". That would be a one-stop no-cost solution to a hundred problems at once. Medical costs, obstacles to innovation and small business, restrictions on free speech. These problems have NO connection to taxes. All of them would be tremendously eased if lawsuits became the last-resort option instead of the easiest way to make big money. ¶ 9:39 AM
Rush has often -- and accurately -- slashed the cable channels for replacing is with could, and even Saturday Night Live has run a pointed parody.
So you'd think Rush and his colleagues might use some actual facts when stirring the public to action?
Nope. Yesterday's tea parties were complaining about something that could happen. Income tax rates are presently at their lowest point in living memory. Yet the participants were shouting about high taxes.
"Petitioning for redress" supposedly means you're complaining about a genuine grievance, and you're asking the gov't to take steps that it has been refusing to take.
In this case the tea parties are complaining about the nonexistent problem of high taxes, and asking Congress to cut taxes. Well, Congress has been cutting taxes for the last decade, and Congress is always deliriously happy to cut taxes. Nothing is easier.
= = = = =
`Take some more tax,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
`I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.'
`You mean you can't take LESS,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take MORE than nothing.'
`Nobody asked YOUR opinion,' said Alice.
`Then you shouldn't talk,' said the Hatter.
This piece of rudeness was more than Alice could bear: she got up in great disgust, and walked off.
`At any rate I'll never go THERE again!' said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. `It's the stupidest tax-party I ever was at in all my life!'
= = = = =
Seriously: If you really want to protest against tyranny and propose a solution to tyranny, you should be protesting the tyranny of litigation and proposing "loser pays" plus "no punitive damages". That would be a one-stop no-cost solution to a hundred problems at once. Medical costs, obstacles to innovation and small business, restrictions on free speech. These problems have NO connection to taxes. All of them would be tremendously eased if lawsuits became the last-resort option instead of the easiest way to make big money. ¶ 9:39 AM
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
3.0 cheers for Microsoft!
We techy types love to bitch about Microsoft, and most of the bitching is justified .... but today M$ did something to cheer loudly about:
Not bad! 30,000 free vouchers so laid-off workers can improve their computer skills. A good example of the "closed-circle" thinking that Polistra has been trying to push. Helping the residents of your own town and state.
Henry Ford and Lew Wentz would be proud.
More info here and here. ¶ 6:35 PM
Microsoft has partnered with the state’s Employment Security Department and the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County to distribute a total of 30,625 training vouchers statewide during the next 90 days. Courses range from basic technology literacy to intermediate-level technology skills. “Elevate America” also provides students with career resources to find internships and permanent jobs.
Not bad! 30,000 free vouchers so laid-off workers can improve their computer skills. A good example of the "closed-circle" thinking that Polistra has been trying to push. Helping the residents of your own town and state.
Henry Ford and Lew Wentz would be proud.
More info here and here. ¶ 6:35 PM
Monday, April 13, 2009
"Root cause"
Listening to State Dept briefing on Somalia ... the spokesman repeats over and over that the proper cure for the piracy problem is to give Somalia a better government. Several military officials and other commentators have been saying the same thing.
Absolute nonsense.
First, the silly Wilson/Bush idea that "democracies don't make war" has been disproved over and over. (Most decisively by Alexander Hamilton!) Any government will make war if it feels the need for money, territory, or power, and it senses a weak spot in its adversary.
Second, the true correlation is exactly backwards. Somalia will not have a chance of gaining a responsible government until the current warlords lose their source of money. As long as they are bringing in the goods and the guns, they will be the dominant power. (See Manweller's Rule.)
Third, we shouldn't care about another country's form of government. We should only care about guarding our own people and property. If stopping piracy happens to leave Somalia with no choice but to adopt a more ordinary government, that's a nice bonus, but it can't be the goal. ¶ 3:12 PM
Absolute nonsense.
First, the silly Wilson/Bush idea that "democracies don't make war" has been disproved over and over. (Most decisively by Alexander Hamilton!) Any government will make war if it feels the need for money, territory, or power, and it senses a weak spot in its adversary.
Second, the true correlation is exactly backwards. Somalia will not have a chance of gaining a responsible government until the current warlords lose their source of money. As long as they are bringing in the goods and the guns, they will be the dominant power. (See Manweller's Rule.)
Third, we shouldn't care about another country's form of government. We should only care about guarding our own people and property. If stopping piracy happens to leave Somalia with no choice but to adopt a more ordinary government, that's a nice bonus, but it can't be the goal. ¶ 3:12 PM
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Detroit Electric returns!
Well, sort of.
The real Detroit Electric was made in Detroit from 1907 to 1929. America's taste for electrics faded through the '20s as gas cars became easier to start and easier to drive. After the Crash, Detroit Electric dissolved, but the factory came back to life as a boutique operation, modifying a small number of Dodge sedans each year until 1940. It's not known for sure who was buying these cars, but older ladies who had begun driving with the silence and simplicity of electricity probably found it hard to give up the habit. (A 1940 episode of Fibber McGee has the local dowager, Abigail Uppington, gliding along the street in her "portable showcase". Here's the one-minute segment, including the sound of the car. If a phenomenon was featured on Fibber's show, you can be sure it was nationally familiar.)
Now a new Detroit Electric Company has taken the old name and logo to attempt a second resurrection. Appropriately, the new version picks up where the original left off in 1940, with a retrofitted gas car. But inappropriately, the new company has no connection with Detroit or even America. The corporation is British, the body is Malaysian, and the drivetrain is a Dutch design to be made in China. Despite that, it sounds like an appealing car at a good price.
= = = = =
Tech note 1: Strictly speaking, Polistra's car is a cross between a Rauch & Lang and a Detroit. The difference isn't huge; most electrics had the same snub-nosed look.
Polistra's car is now available for free here for you CG types.
Tech note 2: The advantages and disadvantages of electric vs gas haven't changed much in a hundred years.
Advantages: silence; no smell or pollution; instant torque from a dead stop (thus no need to idle and no need for a clutch); constant torque at any speed (thus no need for a transmission).
Disadvantage: just one. And it's not the limited range as such; with enough batteries an electric could go the same distance between "fillups" as a typical gas car. No, the real problem is that the "fillup" takes many hours for an electric and a few minutes for a liquid-fueled car. That's the deal-killer for most Americans. If you drive around town in a fairly predictable routine, an electric would serve you well. But if you want to take a 500-mile trip on a weekend, or you need the car at any time of day or night, then liquid fuel is your only choice. ¶ 8:03 PM
Well, sort of.
The real Detroit Electric was made in Detroit from 1907 to 1929. America's taste for electrics faded through the '20s as gas cars became easier to start and easier to drive. After the Crash, Detroit Electric dissolved, but the factory came back to life as a boutique operation, modifying a small number of Dodge sedans each year until 1940. It's not known for sure who was buying these cars, but older ladies who had begun driving with the silence and simplicity of electricity probably found it hard to give up the habit. (A 1940 episode of Fibber McGee has the local dowager, Abigail Uppington, gliding along the street in her "portable showcase". Here's the one-minute segment, including the sound of the car. If a phenomenon was featured on Fibber's show, you can be sure it was nationally familiar.)
Now a new Detroit Electric Company has taken the old name and logo to attempt a second resurrection. Appropriately, the new version picks up where the original left off in 1940, with a retrofitted gas car. But inappropriately, the new company has no connection with Detroit or even America. The corporation is British, the body is Malaysian, and the drivetrain is a Dutch design to be made in China. Despite that, it sounds like an appealing car at a good price.
= = = = =
Tech note 1: Strictly speaking, Polistra's car is a cross between a Rauch & Lang and a Detroit. The difference isn't huge; most electrics had the same snub-nosed look.
Polistra's car is now available for free here for you CG types.
Tech note 2: The advantages and disadvantages of electric vs gas haven't changed much in a hundred years.
Advantages: silence; no smell or pollution; instant torque from a dead stop (thus no need to idle and no need for a clutch); constant torque at any speed (thus no need for a transmission).
Disadvantage: just one. And it's not the limited range as such; with enough batteries an electric could go the same distance between "fillups" as a typical gas car. No, the real problem is that the "fillup" takes many hours for an electric and a few minutes for a liquid-fueled car. That's the deal-killer for most Americans. If you drive around town in a fairly predictable routine, an electric would serve you well. But if you want to take a 500-mile trip on a weekend, or you need the car at any time of day or night, then liquid fuel is your only choice. ¶ 8:03 PM
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Bad guys drove Nashes?
My bedtime OTR listening lately has been detective shows, such as Philip Marlowe or Jack Webb's pre-Dragnet characters. Plain realism was the goal of the classic detective story, yet one unreal oddity stands out in all of these: the bad guys always drive a Nash. This may have started with Chandler, because it's definitely a constant in his stories in book form.
But it just doesn't make sense.
First problem: sometimes the bad guy is driving a Nash convertible, sometimes a sedan, sometimes a coupe. Obviously a writer wants a little variety, but Nash was exactly the wrong choice for variety. Nash made only a handful of convertibles and coupes in the '40s and none at all in the '50s. From '49 through the end of the marque in '57, the big Nash came only in sedan form.
Second problem: Nash had all the wrong qualities for a criminal. Nashes of that era were reliable, roomy, economical, and technically interesting, but they were not flashy or fast. A safety-minded family man would buy a Nash; an engineer, architect or professor would enjoy a Nash.
Your garden-variety thief, then as now, would drive whatever he could buy or steal. His preference was the Ford V8. Light and fast. Your Mafia type, then as now, wanted his wealth and power to be instantly recognizable, which meant a Caddy or Packard.
Surely the detective writers understood these facts. Was it "product placement"? Not likely. Who would pay to have their product associated with criminals?
It's a puzzle.
Early '50s TV cop shows often had both the cops and the criminals driving Nashes, which makes more sense as a product placement. But it's still wrong. Cops mostly drove Fords in that era, for the same reasons that crooks stole Fords. Common (ie anonymous), easy to repair, and fast. In the late '50s and especially the '60s, some cops switched to Dodges, which had become the best combination of speed, handling and cost. ¶ 9:04 AM
But it just doesn't make sense.
First problem: sometimes the bad guy is driving a Nash convertible, sometimes a sedan, sometimes a coupe. Obviously a writer wants a little variety, but Nash was exactly the wrong choice for variety. Nash made only a handful of convertibles and coupes in the '40s and none at all in the '50s. From '49 through the end of the marque in '57, the big Nash came only in sedan form.
Second problem: Nash had all the wrong qualities for a criminal. Nashes of that era were reliable, roomy, economical, and technically interesting, but they were not flashy or fast. A safety-minded family man would buy a Nash; an engineer, architect or professor would enjoy a Nash.
Your garden-variety thief, then as now, would drive whatever he could buy or steal. His preference was the Ford V8. Light and fast. Your Mafia type, then as now, wanted his wealth and power to be instantly recognizable, which meant a Caddy or Packard.
Surely the detective writers understood these facts. Was it "product placement"? Not likely. Who would pay to have their product associated with criminals?
It's a puzzle.
Early '50s TV cop shows often had both the cops and the criminals driving Nashes, which makes more sense as a product placement. But it's still wrong. Cops mostly drove Fords in that era, for the same reasons that crooks stole Fords. Common (ie anonymous), easy to repair, and fast. In the late '50s and especially the '60s, some cops switched to Dodges, which had become the best combination of speed, handling and cost. ¶ 9:04 AM
Friday, April 10, 2009
Impressive wisdom
CBS News covered the devastating tornado in Mena, Ark. They interviewed several people who had either lost their houses or narrowly escaped. One young man, Luis Muniz, standing next to his mother, was calm and collected.
Muniz said: "The house slid 15 feet off its foundation. Wasn't for the fact that the house is 100 years old, we'd be dead."
Now I'd be surprised to hear that level of wisdom from anyone, but it's especially impressive from a youngster. He sure as hell didn't learn it in school; most likely he's done some construction work and noticed the difference between old quality and modern crap. ¶ 6:04 PM
Muniz said: "The house slid 15 feet off its foundation. Wasn't for the fact that the house is 100 years old, we'd be dead."
Now I'd be surprised to hear that level of wisdom from anyone, but it's especially impressive from a youngster. He sure as hell didn't learn it in school; most likely he's done some construction work and noticed the difference between old quality and modern crap. ¶ 6:04 PM
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Stupidest technical idea in history.
GM and Segway
Wait, stop right there.
After those first three words, we already know something fantastically stupid is coming.
But I couldn't have predicted just how breathtakingly awful it is.
Start again: GM and Segway proudly announce: The PUMA.
It goes 35 MPH max, and runs 35 miles on a battery charge.
Who in the world is going to want one of these?
Lively young folks, like the dude in the picture, wouldn't be seen dead in something so dorky. They can already ride bikes or scooters for economy. Fat old** folks simply won't fit, even if you could pry them out of their nice safe comfy Crown Vics.
And where in the world could you drive it?
Not on rough streets, not on snow and ice, not on the highway, not in rain or sleet or wind. In other words, not outside.
Which leaves us with the interior areas of malls and theme parks. And those places already have electric vehicles ranging from wheelchair-like Rascals to cute Cushman mini-pickups.
35 MPH and 35 miles on a charge... yessir, this is hi-tech progress. The electric cars of a HUNDRED DAMNED YEARS AGO could run THREE TIMES AS FAR on a charge, for Christ's sake, and they did it with elegance and grace. Nothing dorky about a Rauch & Lang or a Detroit Electric.
= = = = = =
Sidenote: Polistra, who has been behind the scenes lately, pops in to emphasize that she's not ridiculing the idea of electric cars. She loves the idea of electric cars, provided the cars are appealing and practical.
For instance, why couldn't we build an electric Bantam?
Trouble is, GM has made the idea look ridiculous by announcing this Segway silliness. Polistra wonders: Was that the real purpose of the announcement? Hmm.
= = = = =
** I'm reminded of a famous quote from Bunkie Knudsen, GM's sales manager in its glory days. "You can sell a young man's car to an old man, but you can't sell an old man's car to a young man." Well, is this strange PUMA thing a young man's car or an old man's car? Worst of both worlds. It looks like a wheelchair, but only an athlete can drive it. ¶ 8:19 PM
Wait, stop right there.
After those first three words, we already know something fantastically stupid is coming.
But I couldn't have predicted just how breathtakingly awful it is.
Start again: GM and Segway proudly announce: The PUMA.
It goes 35 MPH max, and runs 35 miles on a battery charge.
Who in the world is going to want one of these?
Lively young folks, like the dude in the picture, wouldn't be seen dead in something so dorky. They can already ride bikes or scooters for economy. Fat old** folks simply won't fit, even if you could pry them out of their nice safe comfy Crown Vics.
And where in the world could you drive it?
Not on rough streets, not on snow and ice, not on the highway, not in rain or sleet or wind. In other words, not outside.
Which leaves us with the interior areas of malls and theme parks. And those places already have electric vehicles ranging from wheelchair-like Rascals to cute Cushman mini-pickups.
35 MPH and 35 miles on a charge... yessir, this is hi-tech progress. The electric cars of a HUNDRED DAMNED YEARS AGO could run THREE TIMES AS FAR on a charge, for Christ's sake, and they did it with elegance and grace. Nothing dorky about a Rauch & Lang or a Detroit Electric.
= = = = = =
Sidenote: Polistra, who has been behind the scenes lately, pops in to emphasize that she's not ridiculing the idea of electric cars. She loves the idea of electric cars, provided the cars are appealing and practical.
For instance, why couldn't we build an electric Bantam?
Trouble is, GM has made the idea look ridiculous by announcing this Segway silliness. Polistra wonders: Was that the real purpose of the announcement? Hmm.
= = = = =
** I'm reminded of a famous quote from Bunkie Knudsen, GM's sales manager in its glory days. "You can sell a young man's car to an old man, but you can't sell an old man's car to a young man." Well, is this strange PUMA thing a young man's car or an old man's car? Worst of both worlds. It looks like a wheelchair, but only an athlete can drive it. ¶ 8:19 PM
Cui bono?
The various talking point heads this morning are discussing Obama's "meekness", his criticism of American arrogance. Predictably the point heads are starting from their usual scrimmage positions: (R) America is God, and nobody may criticize God. (D) America is Satan, and we're happy to hear Obama criticizing Satan.
Neither side is asking the plain practical question:
Does superpower status help or hurt the American people?
It sure as hell didn't help us in 2001. Sheikh Osama didn't want to attack some average ordinary country; he wanted to take down Godzilla. And our saurian complacence and walnut-sized bureaucratic brain kept us from doing anything to forestall the attack, even though front-line FBI agents saw it coming.
It sure as hell doesn't help us in the current economic mess. Because we insist on keeping the dollar as the central currency for foreign exchange, we are vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation by assholes like Soros and nations like China; we are not free to let our own interest rates and currency adjust to changing events; we refuse to decouple ourselves from enemy agencies like WTO and UN because we falsely imagine that we are in charge of those agencies.
Rhetorically, Obama has it right. Unfortunately he isn't taking any practical steps to undo our monopolistic complacency. ¶ 9:22 AM
Neither side is asking the plain practical question:
Does superpower status help or hurt the American people?
It sure as hell didn't help us in 2001. Sheikh Osama didn't want to attack some average ordinary country; he wanted to take down Godzilla. And our saurian complacence and walnut-sized bureaucratic brain kept us from doing anything to forestall the attack, even though front-line FBI agents saw it coming.
It sure as hell doesn't help us in the current economic mess. Because we insist on keeping the dollar as the central currency for foreign exchange, we are vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation by assholes like Soros and nations like China; we are not free to let our own interest rates and currency adjust to changing events; we refuse to decouple ourselves from enemy agencies like WTO and UN because we falsely imagine that we are in charge of those agencies.
Rhetorically, Obama has it right. Unfortunately he isn't taking any practical steps to undo our monopolistic complacency. ¶ 9:22 AM
Monday, April 06, 2009
Klaus on Obama
I looked around for a report on Obama's meeting with Vaclav Klaus, the only world leader who knows and speaks the truth.
Nothing meaningful in American media, only this short piece in slightly skewed English from the Czech news agency:
Note that the Czech news report accurately describes global warming as a "theory". ¶ 7:42 PM
Nothing meaningful in American media, only this short piece in slightly skewed English from the Czech news agency:
Czech President Vaclav Klaus said the public speech U.S. President Barack Obama delivered in Prague on Saturday was "unexpectedly Prague and unexpectedly Czech."
"It was not a cosmopolitan speech in which President Obama would have used the silhouette of Prague in order to make a general message. He surprisingly spoke long about Prague, about history. He spoke about them also during our meetings, he asked about the year 1968, about the year 1989," Klaus said.
"It is not true that it was a speech made on the occasion of the EU summit. It is a good thing for us," Klaus said. Obama attended in Prague an EU-U.S. summit on Sunday.
Klaus said climate change was mentioned during Obama's meeting with Czech politicians at Prague Castle only very briefly.
Klaus is a staunch opponent of the global warming theory.
He said Obama conceded that even the United States is split on the climate change issue.
Note that the Czech news report accurately describes global warming as a "theory". ¶ 7:42 PM
Longest winter
This was the snowiest winter on record for Spokane. Probably not finished either, considering that the previous year had a little snow in June.
The old record was 1948 with 93 inches, and this winter was 97 inches so far. (Average is 44.)
December and January were pure hell, a slow-rolling disaster with two dozen business buildings totally destroyed. As I walk through the neighborhood now, I'd say 1 out of 5 houses show some degree of external damage, ranging from stained siding to busted-off gutters and eaves to dangerously dippy roofs, presumably indicating bent or cracked rafters.
I'm sure the dippiness is new, because I've walked the same route at least a hundred times and I'm a careful observer of houses. Surprisingly the dippiest roofs are on the nicer 1960's ranchers with some architectural charm, like the model I've "drawn" here. The drab early-50s cookiecutter units are not damaged. I would have guessed the other way around: seems like the older and cheaper houses, many of which are poorly maintained rentals, would suffer the most. Perhaps the older ones were built with a better grade of wood?
My own miniature hovel kept a straight roof (I'll pretend my diligent raking helped) but it was internally damaged in January by an extreme ice dam on the back side. The ceiling, floor, and paneling in the laundry room got wet and stayed wet, resulting in stains, warpage and rot. I called the insurance company and they remodeled the room during February. Must admit I got the better end of the deal, because the ceiling and floor were already damaged to a lesser extent by previous ice dam events. The remodelers couldn't manage to replace only the sections that were ruined by this particular dam, so they gave me a nice new ceiling, wall and floor. ¶ 4:04 PM
The old record was 1948 with 93 inches, and this winter was 97 inches so far. (Average is 44.)
December and January were pure hell, a slow-rolling disaster with two dozen business buildings totally destroyed. As I walk through the neighborhood now, I'd say 1 out of 5 houses show some degree of external damage, ranging from stained siding to busted-off gutters and eaves to dangerously dippy roofs, presumably indicating bent or cracked rafters.
I'm sure the dippiness is new, because I've walked the same route at least a hundred times and I'm a careful observer of houses. Surprisingly the dippiest roofs are on the nicer 1960's ranchers with some architectural charm, like the model I've "drawn" here. The drab early-50s cookiecutter units are not damaged. I would have guessed the other way around: seems like the older and cheaper houses, many of which are poorly maintained rentals, would suffer the most. Perhaps the older ones were built with a better grade of wood?
My own miniature hovel kept a straight roof (I'll pretend my diligent raking helped) but it was internally damaged in January by an extreme ice dam on the back side. The ceiling, floor, and paneling in the laundry room got wet and stayed wet, resulting in stains, warpage and rot. I called the insurance company and they remodeled the room during February. Must admit I got the better end of the deal, because the ceiling and floor were already damaged to a lesser extent by previous ice dam events. The remodelers couldn't manage to replace only the sections that were ruined by this particular dam, so they gave me a nice new ceiling, wall and floor. ¶ 4:04 PM
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Tax annoyance
Until now I've never complained about taxes, though I complain often about people who complain about taxes.
When April 15 looms each year, I treat it the same way as other unpleasant chores like cleaning the bathroom ... figuratively close my eyes, avert the conscious mind, let the hands do the work, get it done fast.
Today, for the first time, I felt a "political-level" irritation about federal taxes.
Not about the amount as such, because my tiny income leads to a bearable income tax payment. The irritation came when I made out the check to "Treasury of US", knowing that the head of the Treasury is a Wall Street Mafia gangster who deliberately evaded his own income tax payments and got away with it.
That's annoying. ¶ 2:13 PM
When April 15 looms each year, I treat it the same way as other unpleasant chores like cleaning the bathroom ... figuratively close my eyes, avert the conscious mind, let the hands do the work, get it done fast.
Today, for the first time, I felt a "political-level" irritation about federal taxes.
Not about the amount as such, because my tiny income leads to a bearable income tax payment. The irritation came when I made out the check to "Treasury of US", knowing that the head of the Treasury is a Wall Street Mafia gangster who deliberately evaded his own income tax payments and got away with it.
That's annoying. ¶ 2:13 PM
No, I take it back.
Few days ago I observed that the new Afghan marriage law may be awful but it was adopted democratically, so we should respect it. After reading details of the law instead of the distorted version given in our Communist media, I hereby take back the "awful" part.
The Afghan law is not only democratically adopted, it's more egalitarian than our marriage law.
Down to basics, what is marriage? Man provides money, woman provides sex. Or a bit less crudely, man provides house (money, security, protection) and woman provides home (caring for kids, affection for husband).
The Afghan law codifies both sides of this basic understanding.
Note that some of these provisions are actually Westernizing, forcing the husband to give the woman more freedom and respect than he would traditionally allow, and forcing him to stay home more often than he might want to.
But on the basic transaction, money/sex or house/home, the Afghan law is egalitarian because it requires both husband and wife to contribute their appropriate talents to the marriage. Modern American laws are anti-egalitarian because we require the man to continue paying even after the woman totally abandons him and remarries, while we require nothing at all from the woman.
In true Orwellian form, our media have gone along with the Stalinist line of Friedan and MacKinnon in describing normal marriage obligations as "rape". This is a recent change of language, and it has taken hold completely. In fact our own marriage laws were egalitarian, though not nearly so specific as the Afghan law, until the 1970s. You'd never learn that from the media.
We have always been at war with Eurasia and we have always been at peace with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia and we have always been at peace with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia and we have always been at peace with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia and we have always been at peace with Eurasia.
Rectification reigns supreme. ¶ 8:00 AM
The Afghan law is not only democratically adopted, it's more egalitarian than our marriage law.
Down to basics, what is marriage? Man provides money, woman provides sex. Or a bit less crudely, man provides house (money, security, protection) and woman provides home (caring for kids, affection for husband).
The Afghan law codifies both sides of this basic understanding.
In a copy of the law obtained by Reuters, Article 132 states “a wife is obliged to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband.”
It also states that a husband should spend one night in every four with his wife, have sexual contact with her at least once every four months and that a woman has to wear makeup if her husband demands it.
Another section says a woman cannot inherit any of her husband’s wealth when he dies. Amendments made to the law show that the age of marriage for women was raised to 16 from nine and that a woman would be allowed to leave her home unaccompanied for medical treatment, to go to work or for her education.
Note that some of these provisions are actually Westernizing, forcing the husband to give the woman more freedom and respect than he would traditionally allow, and forcing him to stay home more often than he might want to.
But on the basic transaction, money/sex or house/home, the Afghan law is egalitarian because it requires both husband and wife to contribute their appropriate talents to the marriage. Modern American laws are anti-egalitarian because we require the man to continue paying even after the woman totally abandons him and remarries, while we require nothing at all from the woman.
In true Orwellian form, our media have gone along with the Stalinist line of Friedan and MacKinnon in describing normal marriage obligations as "rape". This is a recent change of language, and it has taken hold completely. In fact our own marriage laws were egalitarian, though not nearly so specific as the Afghan law, until the 1970s. You'd never learn that from the media.
We have always been at war with Eurasia and we have always been at peace with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia and we have always been at peace with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia and we have always been at peace with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia and we have always been at peace with Eurasia.
Rectification reigns supreme. ¶ 8:00 AM
Friday, April 03, 2009
Another good question
Walking home from Safeway this afternoon, saw this bumper sticker.
"What if doing the hokey-pokey really is what it's all about?" ¶ 8:27 PM
Walking home from Safeway this afternoon, saw this bumper sticker.
"What if doing the hokey-pokey really is what it's all about?" ¶ 8:27 PM
Other way around.
Commenters on Dreher's blog bumped into an interesting question in the middle of a typically pointless discussion of "gay" "marriage".
The interesting question is this:
Divorce started to increase around 1970.
Income for working-class males started to drop (comparatively) around 1970.
The conventional conclusion, especially popular among conservatives, is that divorce leads to poverty.
But the opposite causation between these two trends actually makes more sense.
What men want more than anything else is to feel useful, to be the provider. As their providing ability started to decline, men found less reason to get into marriage and more reason to get out.
I suspect this causation can never be pried away from many other crucial trends that started around the same time. Feminism was turning young women into unattractive and useless appendages, unfit for the role of wife and mother; no-fault divorce began to remove the legal fence around the contract of marriage; Leninist saboteurs were pulling churches away from their historical role as helper and backstop for marriage; and television brought false visions of romance while it broke down neighborhood loyalty.
Nevertheless, this is a productive way to examine the specific connection between income and divorce. ¶ 12:54 PM
The interesting question is this:
Divorce started to increase around 1970.
Income for working-class males started to drop (comparatively) around 1970.
The conventional conclusion, especially popular among conservatives, is that divorce leads to poverty.
But the opposite causation between these two trends actually makes more sense.
What men want more than anything else is to feel useful, to be the provider. As their providing ability started to decline, men found less reason to get into marriage and more reason to get out.
I suspect this causation can never be pried away from many other crucial trends that started around the same time. Feminism was turning young women into unattractive and useless appendages, unfit for the role of wife and mother; no-fault divorce began to remove the legal fence around the contract of marriage; Leninist saboteurs were pulling churches away from their historical role as helper and backstop for marriage; and television brought false visions of romance while it broke down neighborhood loyalty.
Nevertheless, this is a productive way to examine the specific connection between income and divorce. ¶ 12:54 PM
Just stop this crap 2.
There's a lot of idiotic agitation about North Korea and Persia and atom bombs. The purveyors of standard nonsense are mooing that they Hope these Countries will Behave Maturely and Join the Community of Nations. If these two Countries persist in testing nukes, we will be Sorely Displeased, and we will Show our Displeasure by Frowning. All Options Are On The Table, but we will not pick up any of the options and use them; we will just Frown. Like good squishy modern parents, we will shake our head and say "Now Persia, you know this is Not Good."
This is beyond silly.
First, NoKo and Persia know goddamn well that we are pitiful paper tigers.
Second, ACQUIRING NUKES IS A RITE OF PASSAGE. Countries behave more maturely AFTER they have a couple of nukes. It's like getting a driver's license. When you're behind the wheel, you realize that your recklessness will lead to a crash that kills you as well as the other guy.
= = = = =
Separate but equally annoying, all the purveyors of standard nonsense are chirping in unison "Oh look! See Michelle! See how she made it to the top by hard work! Hard work! Hard work! Hard work! Work, Michelle, work! Look, look, look!"
Ratshit. She made it to the top by being pretty and by marrying the right man. Her college degree and career are totally irrelevant; her talents as a wife and mother are tremendously important. That's very hard work, but it's NOT the kind of hard work the purveyors are chirping about, and it's not the kind of hard work that Michelle herself is recommending when she speaks to young women.
Think about this: Michelle Obama is a shining example of the traditional and normal division of labor between man and woman. She has clearly done everything possible for the success and happiness of her husband and kids. Her husband is the most successful man in the world, and her kids appear to be sane, civilized and happy. Yet she's telling young women to follow the modern and abnormal model, which leads to failure for most families.
But she wouldn't be in this position at all if she'd been an ugly girl. Like it or not, that's a fact. ¶ 8:34 AM
This is beyond silly.
First, NoKo and Persia know goddamn well that we are pitiful paper tigers.
Second, ACQUIRING NUKES IS A RITE OF PASSAGE. Countries behave more maturely AFTER they have a couple of nukes. It's like getting a driver's license. When you're behind the wheel, you realize that your recklessness will lead to a crash that kills you as well as the other guy.
= = = = =
Separate but equally annoying, all the purveyors of standard nonsense are chirping in unison "Oh look! See Michelle! See how she made it to the top by hard work! Hard work! Hard work! Hard work! Work, Michelle, work! Look, look, look!"
Ratshit. She made it to the top by being pretty and by marrying the right man. Her college degree and career are totally irrelevant; her talents as a wife and mother are tremendously important. That's very hard work, but it's NOT the kind of hard work the purveyors are chirping about, and it's not the kind of hard work that Michelle herself is recommending when she speaks to young women.
Think about this: Michelle Obama is a shining example of the traditional and normal division of labor between man and woman. She has clearly done everything possible for the success and happiness of her husband and kids. Her husband is the most successful man in the world, and her kids appear to be sane, civilized and happy. Yet she's telling young women to follow the modern and abnormal model, which leads to failure for most families.
But she wouldn't be in this position at all if she'd been an ugly girl. Like it or not, that's a fact. ¶ 8:34 AM
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Look ma, no invisible hands!
Gordon Brown says: "The old Washington consensus is dead. The combination of western-style capitalism and democracy, that we've been pushing on the world for the last 50 or 60 years, has shown it won't work."
False distinction.
American capitalism before the 1980s was a very different animal from the Reagan/Clinton/Bush version of capitalism. From Roosevelt through JFK, we had a stable setup with these six components:
1. Considerable gov't regulation.
2. Many big companies operated as semi-governmental utilities.
3. Henry Ford's closed circle. Hire local workers, pay them enough to buy your own products, buy local materials.
4. Relatively high tariffs and carefully watched bilateral trade agreements.
5. Stocks more like bonds, purchased mainly for dividends.
6. Banks operate in a closed circle, paying interest to attract depositors and charging interest on loans. Variations in interest rate slow down foolish borrowing and encourage saving when it's needed.
= = = = =
Through the 80s and 90s, concluding with the Enron laws of 1999, all of these changed.
Now we have:
1. Low regulation
2. Even companies that should be utilities by any normal definition are free to seek maximal share price instead of customer service.
3. Broken circle. Eliminate employees, send factories abroad, buy from abroad. This removes the "invisible hand" of capitalism, because there is no feedback.
4. Low tariffs for imports, and dependence on global trade organizations, while our trade partners continue to apply high tariffs to our exports. Accountability is supposedly transferred to the trade organization, which is accountable to nobody.
5. Stocks, bonds, derivatives, all bought and sold for microsecond-scale price change, which drives business away from production and toward fraud.
6. Big banks use securitization, hedges and credit default swaps. All of these devices are loop-breakers, designed to keep interest rates constant and negative, and to remove consequences of bad decisions. The "invisible hand" of banking is gone.
These two systems are grossly different, yet most economists crunch them together under the term "western-style capitalism."
In fact what we have now is more akin to a slave-based market system, because the costs and benefits of labor, the advantages of maintaining human capital, have been factored out.
The new slave-market system certainly achieves Economic Efficiency, and it has certainly collapsed. This shouldn't have been a surprise: a system with no error-correction loops is guaranteed to roar out of control and crash.
The Roosevelt/Eisenhower/JFK setup has not failed because we haven't been using it. In fact we know from history and personal experience that the lives of ordinary Americans were better under the theories of Henry Ford than they are under the theories of Phil Gramm.
= = = = =
Update 4/4: CNN's Richard Quest, the annoyingly growly Brit, has also recognized this chronological distinction, though he didn't describe it in my annoyingly engineerish way.
False distinction.
American capitalism before the 1980s was a very different animal from the Reagan/Clinton/Bush version of capitalism. From Roosevelt through JFK, we had a stable setup with these six components:
1. Considerable gov't regulation.
2. Many big companies operated as semi-governmental utilities.
3. Henry Ford's closed circle. Hire local workers, pay them enough to buy your own products, buy local materials.
4. Relatively high tariffs and carefully watched bilateral trade agreements.
5. Stocks more like bonds, purchased mainly for dividends.
6. Banks operate in a closed circle, paying interest to attract depositors and charging interest on loans. Variations in interest rate slow down foolish borrowing and encourage saving when it's needed.
= = = = =
Through the 80s and 90s, concluding with the Enron laws of 1999, all of these changed.
Now we have:
1. Low regulation
2. Even companies that should be utilities by any normal definition are free to seek maximal share price instead of customer service.
3. Broken circle. Eliminate employees, send factories abroad, buy from abroad. This removes the "invisible hand" of capitalism, because there is no feedback.
4. Low tariffs for imports, and dependence on global trade organizations, while our trade partners continue to apply high tariffs to our exports. Accountability is supposedly transferred to the trade organization, which is accountable to nobody.
5. Stocks, bonds, derivatives, all bought and sold for microsecond-scale price change, which drives business away from production and toward fraud.
6. Big banks use securitization, hedges and credit default swaps. All of these devices are loop-breakers, designed to keep interest rates constant and negative, and to remove consequences of bad decisions. The "invisible hand" of banking is gone.
These two systems are grossly different, yet most economists crunch them together under the term "western-style capitalism."
In fact what we have now is more akin to a slave-based market system, because the costs and benefits of labor, the advantages of maintaining human capital, have been factored out.
The new slave-market system certainly achieves Economic Efficiency, and it has certainly collapsed. This shouldn't have been a surprise: a system with no error-correction loops is guaranteed to roar out of control and crash.
The Roosevelt/Eisenhower/JFK setup has not failed because we haven't been using it. In fact we know from history and personal experience that the lives of ordinary Americans were better under the theories of Henry Ford than they are under the theories of Phil Gramm.
= = = = =
Update 4/4: CNN's Richard Quest, the annoyingly growly Brit, has also recognized this chronological distinction, though he didn't describe it in my annoyingly engineerish way.
Labels: the broken circle
¶ 9:26 AM
G20 puzzlement
I understand the motivation of the protesters. Marching and singing help to maintain the morale and the "emotional investment" of the participants; and the publicity (especially the bloody face pix!) increases fundraising and relative prestige of the leaders. Standard stuff, well known to military leaders from Sun Tzu to Schwartzkopf, and well known to ideological leaders from Jesus to Jessajackson.
But I don't understand why the presidents and prime ministers are there. Surely all of these men have access to telephones and computers. They can talk any time they want, without the inconvenience of a closed compound surrounded by protesters. Perhaps the smaller nations gain some prestige, but the big boys don't gain anything. ¶ 8:17 AM
But I don't understand why the presidents and prime ministers are there. Surely all of these men have access to telephones and computers. They can talk any time they want, without the inconvenience of a closed compound surrounded by protesters. Perhaps the smaller nations gain some prestige, but the big boys don't gain anything. ¶ 8:17 AM
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Bryan the thinker
Archive.org has just posted three short Edison cylinder recordings by William Jennings Bryan. We remember Bryan as a fiery and spine-tingling orator, but these three short pieces show a different side, a sharp thinker who knew how to distinguish ideas from "issues".
The speech on tariffs is especially instructive, as he separates revenue tariffs from punitive tariffs, and chides the contemporary Republicans for continuing punitive tariffs even when they made our manufacturers less competitive. Bryan is completely practical, focusing on the needs of our people.
The speech on bank deposits deals with a system adopted a few years earlier by Oklahoma. Bryan recommended national adoption of the system; unfortunately nobody listened. When FDR finally imposed the national FDIC in 1933, Oklahoma banks resisted. I didn't realize until now that they weren't simply confident or obstinate, they were already insured!
= = = = =
Tech note: The audio versions of the Cross of Gold speech available online are based on Bryan's 1923 rerun of the speech for recording, which is 'flatter' than the original. I remember hearing a 78 RPM version in 1964 which was far more 'musical' than this one. The one I heard wouldn't have been the original, but I suspect it was closer in time to the original. In that version the last line was tossed off accelerando, ending on an unresolved note, as in "You Shall Not CrucifyMankind Upona Crossofgold;-----", which would have led into Bryan's quick and dramatic exit from the podium. Presumably that earlier and stronger version has not been preserved, though it might still be lurking in some dusty archive of records distributed to schools. ¶ 3:08 PM
The speech on tariffs is especially instructive, as he separates revenue tariffs from punitive tariffs, and chides the contemporary Republicans for continuing punitive tariffs even when they made our manufacturers less competitive. Bryan is completely practical, focusing on the needs of our people.
The speech on bank deposits deals with a system adopted a few years earlier by Oklahoma. Bryan recommended national adoption of the system; unfortunately nobody listened. When FDR finally imposed the national FDIC in 1933, Oklahoma banks resisted. I didn't realize until now that they weren't simply confident or obstinate, they were already insured!
= = = = =
Tech note: The audio versions of the Cross of Gold speech available online are based on Bryan's 1923 rerun of the speech for recording, which is 'flatter' than the original. I remember hearing a 78 RPM version in 1964 which was far more 'musical' than this one. The one I heard wouldn't have been the original, but I suspect it was closer in time to the original. In that version the last line was tossed off accelerando, ending on an unresolved note, as in "You Shall Not CrucifyMankind Upona Crossofgold;-----", which would have led into Bryan's quick and dramatic exit from the podium. Presumably that earlier and stronger version has not been preserved, though it might still be lurking in some dusty archive of records distributed to schools. ¶ 3:08 PM
Easy question
Wolfa Blitzera on CNN just now: "Afghanistana hasa justa passed a newa law that allowsa husbandsa to rape theira wives. What'sa goinga on?"
Wella, Wolfa boy, I'lla tella you what'sa goinga on.
Democracy. You asked for it, you got it.
And in fact the Afghan democracy is more democratic than ours.
Consider:
Afghanistan is almost entirely Mohammedan by culture. This law is fully in accord with Mohammedan culture and practice, if not necessarily the scriptures.
America is almost entirely Christian by culture. Yet our "democracy" bombs, strafes and snipes Christians, requires states to allow abortion on demand, subsidizes the ACLU every time it tries to pull down a cross, subsidizes "scientists" who insult Christians every time they open their mouths, subsidizes Mohammedan ceremonies in public places while prohibiting Christian speech in public places.
In other words, the Afghan democracy is following the wishes of its own demos while the American "democracy" works fiendishly hard to kill its own demos. ¶ 1:29 PM
Wella, Wolfa boy, I'lla tella you what'sa goinga on.
Democracy. You asked for it, you got it.
And in fact the Afghan democracy is more democratic than ours.
Consider:
Afghanistan is almost entirely Mohammedan by culture. This law is fully in accord with Mohammedan culture and practice, if not necessarily the scriptures.
America is almost entirely Christian by culture. Yet our "democracy" bombs, strafes and snipes Christians, requires states to allow abortion on demand, subsidizes the ACLU every time it tries to pull down a cross, subsidizes "scientists" who insult Christians every time they open their mouths, subsidizes Mohammedan ceremonies in public places while prohibiting Christian speech in public places.
In other words, the Afghan democracy is following the wishes of its own demos while the American "democracy" works fiendishly hard to kill its own demos. ¶ 1:29 PM
Monday, March 30, 2009
Dullest dream ever
This morning I awoke from the dullest dream I've ever had.... or at least the dullest remembered dream.
In the dream I was shaving, and my beard was somewhat longer than usual. That's all.
Wow! Such bizarre originality! Such complex plot and deep characters!
When the old brain gets dull and scratchy like this, I know the problem: Music deficiency. Accordingly, I took a dose of Vitamin M supplement in the form of a Mozart piano concerto. Now the brain is just a bit more lively.
= = = = =
The dullness is notable because most of my remembered dreams these days are fairly creative. For instance, the Great Polistrini item was written down exactly from an actual dream. I wish there was a way to harness that imaginative power in waking hours! ¶ 4:04 PM
This morning I awoke from the dullest dream I've ever had.... or at least the dullest remembered dream.
In the dream I was shaving, and my beard was somewhat longer than usual. That's all.
Wow! Such bizarre originality! Such complex plot and deep characters!
When the old brain gets dull and scratchy like this, I know the problem: Music deficiency. Accordingly, I took a dose of Vitamin M supplement in the form of a Mozart piano concerto. Now the brain is just a bit more lively.
= = = = =
The dullness is notable because most of my remembered dreams these days are fairly creative. For instance, the Great Polistrini item was written down exactly from an actual dream. I wish there was a way to harness that imaginative power in waking hours! ¶ 4:04 PM
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Good decision from Texas schoolbook board
The Texas curriculum board, which has national influence, has reached a good compromise on various questions. Good for true science, that is ... not good for the pure advocates of "Darwinism" (which has very little to do with Darwin) and not good for the pure advocates of creationism.
Well, there are genuine weaknesses in the theory, arguable on scientific grounds, and it appears that the board recognizes this:
Good enough. ¶ 1:24 PM
The board voted to remove a longstanding requirement that students analyze the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory. Mainstream scientists resoundingly reject that language, saying there are no weak links in the theory of evolution, which has been corroborated by discoveries in fields ranging from genetics to geology.
Well, there are genuine weaknesses in the theory, arguable on scientific grounds, and it appears that the board recognizes this:
The curriculum will require that students "in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."
"Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned," said Dr. John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that argues an intelligent designer created life.
Good enough. ¶ 1:24 PM
Self-explanatory sentence
Via Dreher:
Been a while since I've run across a good self-explanatory sentence. This one is absolutely perfect.
"Who painted it?"
A life spent in the secular elite bubble, summed up in three words. ¶ 12:23 PM
During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe ...
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary's eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image's lack of decay.
Mrs. Clinton was received on Thursday at 8:15 a.m. by the rector of the Basilica, Msgr. Diego Monroy.
Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion.
After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked "who painted it?" to which Msgr. Monroy responded "God!"
Been a while since I've run across a good self-explanatory sentence. This one is absolutely perfect.
"Who painted it?"
A life spent in the secular elite bubble, summed up in three words. ¶ 12:23 PM
Saturday, March 28, 2009
It's Earth Hour again!!!!
Polistra and the Author celebrate Earth Hour 2009!!!!
= = = = =
More seriously, darkness is the perfect symbol for the Gaia anti-science crusade.
Galileo, Newton, Bruno and their contemporaries led us out of the Dark Ages and into the Enlightenment. They led us away from a time when reality was determined by the Church's theory, and into a time when reality was observed directly, using common sense, measuring instruments and plain logic.
Maurice Strong, Al Gore, James Hansen and their contemporaries are leading us back into the Dark Ages. They are leading us away from observed fact, back to the Ptolemaic era when all thinking must be based on the a-priori Theory of the Church, no matter how absurd. ¶ 1:53 PM
Polistra and the Author celebrate Earth Hour 2009!!!!
= = = = =
More seriously, darkness is the perfect symbol for the Gaia anti-science crusade.
Galileo, Newton, Bruno and their contemporaries led us out of the Dark Ages and into the Enlightenment. They led us away from a time when reality was determined by the Church's theory, and into a time when reality was observed directly, using common sense, measuring instruments and plain logic.
Maurice Strong, Al Gore, James Hansen and their contemporaries are leading us back into the Dark Ages. They are leading us away from observed fact, back to the Ptolemaic era when all thinking must be based on the a-priori Theory of the Church, no matter how absurd. ¶ 1:53 PM
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Ideas vs Issues
Dreher pointed to an important article by Lee Siegel.
Siegel says: "What we never hear about in the popular media—where intellectual discussion once took place—is debate over fundamental meanings, or essential definitions, or connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena. Those are the elements of an idea, which is the challenge consciousness makes to concrete reality."
Siegel's main point is that we no longer traffic in ideas. Instead, we bash each other with "issues", which are easily divided into Talking Points of Side A versus Talking Points of Side B. Web forums nearly always operate on this basis, whether the subject is politics, religion, sex, or technology. As long as you are repeating the Points of one side, you get cheers from your side and respect from the other. If you dare to stray outside the chalk lines, if you suggest that both A and B are meaningless and superficial, you'll get beaten and strafed. Your only choice is to leave the forum.
New ideas are fragile and can't survive amid the meaningless football scrimmage of an "issues debate". To incubate ideas you need both civility and stability. Polistra has already discussed the role of civility here. Stability means that you can count on a source of money and structure for a good long time. You need a laboratory (figurative or literal) to explore ideas, suggest new variations, test the consequences.
There are two ways to create a stable lab setting: private wealth and public funding. Private wealth has always worked best .... the ancient Chinese, Hebrew and Greek philosopher/scientists were either wealthy or depended on wealthy patrons. Private wealth continues today as the funding base for think tanks and foundations.
Public funding began with monasteries, which evolved into universities, which served as outstanding idea factories for a few centuries. More recently, universities have been trivialized by several different trends: the tenure process tends to remove outside-the-lines thinkers; pursuit of grants leads to a focus on "issues" favored by the grantor; and fear of litigation stops many good ideas before they can be formed into experiments.
An excellent example of quasi-public funding is Bell Labs. From 1900 to 1980, Bell was a private company with governmental powers, and it had plenty of spare money and plenty of stability. It could afford to maintain the Labs as a place for open-ended experimentation, and the Labs gave us many of our best ideas and technologies in return. After the breakup of Bell in 1982, the Labs lost independence and stability, and devolved into an ordinary R&D department for a French company called Alcatel.
RCA has a similar history on a smaller scale. The Radio Corporation of America was founded as a semi-governmental utility, and for decades had enough profit and stability to support open-ended research in radio and TV.
Privatization and deregulation have ruined stability. Can we put this evil genie back in the bottle? I don't know. Korean and Japanese companies copied the Bell and RCA business style, and still run as partial monopolies. Maybe we could copy the model back from them!
= = = = =
One point that Siegel missed: the idea-makers have soiled their own nest. Public and private support for the arts would be much larger if artists hadn't spent the entire 20th century mocking the people and committing cruel practical jokes against normal tastes. Public and private support for science would be much larger if scientists hadn't spent the last 40 years insulting Christianity and ripping Western civilization, or the last 20 years whoring after transparently false and wildly destructive pseudoscientific "theories" like Economics, the Big Bang and Global Warming.
Another point: In current political discussion we don't even have "issues", we only have numbers. Though the underlying plans and bills include a tiny handful of new ideas (eg electronic records in medical care, or, uh, electronic records in medical care, or...) the only thing we hear is numbers, numbers, numbers. Billions, trillions, taxes, spending, deficits, debts. The motive is hardly mysterious: when the only questions are "how much" questions, you never have to answer any real questions like "Where is this money going and how in the hell is it going to help the goddamn PEOPLE of THIS goddamn COUNTRY?" ¶ 2:51 PM
Siegel says: "What we never hear about in the popular media—where intellectual discussion once took place—is debate over fundamental meanings, or essential definitions, or connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena. Those are the elements of an idea, which is the challenge consciousness makes to concrete reality."
Siegel's main point is that we no longer traffic in ideas. Instead, we bash each other with "issues", which are easily divided into Talking Points of Side A versus Talking Points of Side B. Web forums nearly always operate on this basis, whether the subject is politics, religion, sex, or technology. As long as you are repeating the Points of one side, you get cheers from your side and respect from the other. If you dare to stray outside the chalk lines, if you suggest that both A and B are meaningless and superficial, you'll get beaten and strafed. Your only choice is to leave the forum.
New ideas are fragile and can't survive amid the meaningless football scrimmage of an "issues debate". To incubate ideas you need both civility and stability. Polistra has already discussed the role of civility here. Stability means that you can count on a source of money and structure for a good long time. You need a laboratory (figurative or literal) to explore ideas, suggest new variations, test the consequences.
There are two ways to create a stable lab setting: private wealth and public funding. Private wealth has always worked best .... the ancient Chinese, Hebrew and Greek philosopher/scientists were either wealthy or depended on wealthy patrons. Private wealth continues today as the funding base for think tanks and foundations.
Public funding began with monasteries, which evolved into universities, which served as outstanding idea factories for a few centuries. More recently, universities have been trivialized by several different trends: the tenure process tends to remove outside-the-lines thinkers; pursuit of grants leads to a focus on "issues" favored by the grantor; and fear of litigation stops many good ideas before they can be formed into experiments.
An excellent example of quasi-public funding is Bell Labs. From 1900 to 1980, Bell was a private company with governmental powers, and it had plenty of spare money and plenty of stability. It could afford to maintain the Labs as a place for open-ended experimentation, and the Labs gave us many of our best ideas and technologies in return. After the breakup of Bell in 1982, the Labs lost independence and stability, and devolved into an ordinary R&D department for a French company called Alcatel.
RCA has a similar history on a smaller scale. The Radio Corporation of America was founded as a semi-governmental utility, and for decades had enough profit and stability to support open-ended research in radio and TV.
Privatization and deregulation have ruined stability. Can we put this evil genie back in the bottle? I don't know. Korean and Japanese companies copied the Bell and RCA business style, and still run as partial monopolies. Maybe we could copy the model back from them!
= = = = =
One point that Siegel missed: the idea-makers have soiled their own nest. Public and private support for the arts would be much larger if artists hadn't spent the entire 20th century mocking the people and committing cruel practical jokes against normal tastes. Public and private support for science would be much larger if scientists hadn't spent the last 40 years insulting Christianity and ripping Western civilization, or the last 20 years whoring after transparently false and wildly destructive pseudoscientific "theories" like Economics, the Big Bang and Global Warming.
Another point: In current political discussion we don't even have "issues", we only have numbers. Though the underlying plans and bills include a tiny handful of new ideas (eg electronic records in medical care, or, uh, electronic records in medical care, or...) the only thing we hear is numbers, numbers, numbers. Billions, trillions, taxes, spending, deficits, debts. The motive is hardly mysterious: when the only questions are "how much" questions, you never have to answer any real questions like "Where is this money going and how in the hell is it going to help the goddamn PEOPLE of THIS goddamn COUNTRY?" ¶ 2:51 PM
What's wrong with these people?
This morning the Cong Republicans gave a press conference, supposedly to announce an alternative to Obama's budget. The alternative has no chance of being passed, so I can understand the lack of urgency in putting a plan together. But an opposition party is not just about this week's legislation; it's supposed to provide a long-term pull in a different direction. And the current brand-R leadership fails utterly at both tasks.
Look, this is basic Public Speaking 101. You shape your message toward the known audience. You don't waste time repeating things the audience already knows. You get to the point, giving reasons for each proposal.
These dummies form a parade of different speakers, each saying the exact same thing: "Wow, the Obama budget is really big! Really, really, big! No, I mean it! Really, really, really big!!! Do you know how much a trillion is? A trillion dollars, placed end to end, would stretch to the moon and back 4,765.332 times!!! That's really, really, really, really big!!!!!"
Who's the audience for this conference? It's political junkies. News media, other politicians, C-Span watchers. All of these people already know that the federal government is really, really big. You don't need to tell them, and you don't need a parade of different faces. You just need one speaker who has the basic skill set of a teacher, salesman or lawyer. Surely among 200 brand-R members of Congress you could find one competent speaker? Guess not.
Net result: this conference is nothing more than self-indulgence.
This is unfortunate because we need a serious opposition party to provide a mature 'ground path' for impulses that will otherwise turn toward violence. It's also unfortunate because the actual plan, as outlined by NRO, finally mentions lawsuit reform, the one new idea that could genuinely improve our lives without any cost. If the opposition party had spent 15 minutes thoroughly discussing and advertising tort reform, they could have done some good.
= = = = =
Update 4/1: The supposed alternative plan has finally been published. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't contain even one word about litigation reform, and surprisingly it doesn't mention nuclear power. So the two things that would make the greatest difference at the least cost are still unthinkable for these zero-brained noisemakers. Their "inspiring" proposal does contain one new and worthwhile item: a Medicare reform that sounds like it might help. ¶ 10:44 AM
Look, this is basic Public Speaking 101. You shape your message toward the known audience. You don't waste time repeating things the audience already knows. You get to the point, giving reasons for each proposal.
These dummies form a parade of different speakers, each saying the exact same thing: "Wow, the Obama budget is really big! Really, really, big! No, I mean it! Really, really, really big!!! Do you know how much a trillion is? A trillion dollars, placed end to end, would stretch to the moon and back 4,765.332 times!!! That's really, really, really, really big!!!!!"
Who's the audience for this conference? It's political junkies. News media, other politicians, C-Span watchers. All of these people already know that the federal government is really, really big. You don't need to tell them, and you don't need a parade of different faces. You just need one speaker who has the basic skill set of a teacher, salesman or lawyer. Surely among 200 brand-R members of Congress you could find one competent speaker? Guess not.
Net result: this conference is nothing more than self-indulgence.
This is unfortunate because we need a serious opposition party to provide a mature 'ground path' for impulses that will otherwise turn toward violence. It's also unfortunate because the actual plan, as outlined by NRO, finally mentions lawsuit reform, the one new idea that could genuinely improve our lives without any cost. If the opposition party had spent 15 minutes thoroughly discussing and advertising tort reform, they could have done some good.
= = = = =
Update 4/1: The supposed alternative plan has finally been published. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't contain even one word about litigation reform, and surprisingly it doesn't mention nuclear power. So the two things that would make the greatest difference at the least cost are still unthinkable for these zero-brained noisemakers. Their "inspiring" proposal does contain one new and worthwhile item: a Medicare reform that sounds like it might help. ¶ 10:44 AM
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Фуфлёшка
Obama continues to give excellent advice: we need to save more, borrow less, produce more, speculate less. Wonderful to hear this advice from a president at last, especially a president who has the talent and charisma to get the message across.
But at the same time, the Obama team is working in the exact opposite direction, working to re-inflate all the false junk that got us into this mess. Bugsy Bernanke, questioned in Congress about the need to regulate credit default swaps, instead proposed a new CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP DEFAULT SWAP, which will supposedly insure the value of the existing credit default swaps which suppposedly insure the value of bonds. This is way beyond parody, but Polistra will try to illustrate the point with the help of Orlov's brilliant idea:
¶ 11:34 AM
But at the same time, the Obama team is working in the exact opposite direction, working to re-inflate all the false junk that got us into this mess. Bugsy Bernanke, questioned in Congress about the need to regulate credit default swaps, instead proposed a new CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP DEFAULT SWAP, which will supposedly insure the value of the existing credit default swaps which suppposedly insure the value of bonds. This is way beyond parody, but Polistra will try to illustrate the point with the help of Orlov's brilliant idea:
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
China's gold standard
China wants to set up a central currency for the world, cutting loose from the dollar. As described here, it seems like an excellent idea. It would remove both the burdens and the threats from our economy. We would have to borrow and lend on an equal footing, which would force us to behave more frugally in general. We'd be less vulnerable to manipulation by oil-producing countries and currency speculators, and less able to manipulate other countries.
In other words, our officials would have to pay more attention to the welfare of the American people, and less to the maintenance of empire.
From my engineerish viewpoint, it's always better to decouple an important variable, to remove it from outside access. It's good to have firewalls in a building, and it's good to have firewalls on a computer. Gives less power to arsonists and hackers, which means the arsonists and hackers have to look elsewhere.
The present crisis has all the hallmarks of an attack by some form of economic hacker. If so, decoupling wouldn't help us in the present crisis, because we apparently have to continue throwing trillions of dollars at the hacker to prevent the alternative.
Still, a central currency would make future attacks far more difficult. ¶ 2:35 PM
In other words, our officials would have to pay more attention to the welfare of the American people, and less to the maintenance of empire.
From my engineerish viewpoint, it's always better to decouple an important variable, to remove it from outside access. It's good to have firewalls in a building, and it's good to have firewalls on a computer. Gives less power to arsonists and hackers, which means the arsonists and hackers have to look elsewhere.
The present crisis has all the hallmarks of an attack by some form of economic hacker. If so, decoupling wouldn't help us in the present crisis, because we apparently have to continue throwing trillions of dollars at the hacker to prevent the alternative.
Still, a central currency would make future attacks far more difficult. ¶ 2:35 PM
Monday, March 23, 2009
Blogday 4!
Author: Happy Blogday!
Polistra: Oh! This is, what, our 4th year?
Author: Yep. A few days late. We started March 15, 2005. I'd been writing for a few months in a different place, but 3/15/05 is when we started on Blogspot.
Polistra: I remember my first appearance here:
Author: You were still dressed in your store-bought outfit at that point. Most of that first month was devoted to the Terry Schiavo case.
Polistra: Still think that was a tragedy and a disaster. And as usual the forces of death won, by the old Orwellian gambit of making the good people look crazy.
Author: Even though the facts of the case were not quite as simple as I thought at the time, the point still stands.
Polistra: You know, one thing changed rather suddenly in the middle of these four years. At first we were going along with the war effort; in fact we were unhappy that the war wasn't being pushed harder.
Author: It was the lack of push that finally opened my eyes, caused me to look at the basics. Where did the attackers come from? Arabia. Who helped them? Lots of countries, including Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Germany. Where was Sheikh Osama? Probably Pakistan. Given that pattern, why were we working half-heartedly toward the futile goal of setting up democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while treating Arabia, Pakistan and Germany as allies? It simply made no sense. The friends and foes were wrong, the goal was pointless, and we were scrupulously avoiding the most obvious responses to an attack.
Polistra: A cautious war is one thing; could be attributed to Bush's old-rich Episcopalian heritage. Wouldn't be prudent and all that. But a completely misdirected war goes beyond weakness.
Author: Lots of other things happened in these years. Another turning point, I think, was Hurricane Katrina.
Polistra: That was more or less the last straw. After that, I couldn't fool myself into thinking that our government was only sloppy or incompetent. Around the end of '07 I tried to time-travel, but it didn't work. I disappeared for a bit, came back dressed in 1939 style, but I still don't know what happened. Apparently I had to get totally heartbroken before the ... gate or whatever it is would open. And that happened in June of '08.
Author: When you came back from your '39 vacation, you observed that McCain was the direct equivalent of Hoover, and Obama seemed to be parallel to FDR, in that he had the same teaching ability, the same morale-boosting ability.
Polistra: Yes, but he clearly doesn't have the same willingness to use the power of his office. I've said it a lot, but it bears repeating. Roosevelt closed down the banks on his SECOND DAY IN OFFICE, and a week later the banks were sorted out. Insolvent ones were closed, solid ones back in business. Now we're in Obama's SECOND MONTH and he's just today SUGGESTED a program for dealing with the bad banks.
Author: And the Wall Street Mafia cheered, which tells us that the program is a gift to the syndicate, not a punishment or abolition of the syndicate.
Polistra: We'll never know what's really going on. No newspaper will ever do the equivalent of a "Pentagon Papers" to expose the underlying blackmail or whatever it is.
Author: And the papers wonder why people stopped reading them.
Polistra: But some information does come through. While all that noise is holding our attention, Robert Reich has actually REPORTED a few actual FACTS that we aren't hearing from either brand. He points out that all of Obama's efforts to get more revenue are blocked by the Wall Street Mafia, and the administration is unwilling to overrule the Mafia.
Author: The Mafia's cute little pet "government" occasionally whines when the Mafia pulls the choke-chain too hard, but it always obeys.
Polistra: Okay, back to the question: we still have full-strength Hoovers, clinging desperately to their obscenely wealthy masters, screaming NO NO NO NO NO DON'T TAX ME MOMMY WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! like spoiled two-year-olds. And we have Obama behaving like an adult but without any force. He's a weak diluted shadow of Roosevelt. But we don't have Father Coughlin, and we don't have a Bonus Army or violent laborites. FDR was forceful and effective because he knew that Coughlin and the Bundists, and various Red factions, were active and growing. He knew that the country would fall in one direction or the other, red or brown, if he didn't get it right.
Author: Hmm. Yes, you'd think the situation would be even more ripe for a Coughlin type now. In 1933 the elites were mainly Episcopal Wasps like Mellon and Morgan. Now the people who caused this mess are mainly Jewish, and the people who are SUPPOSEDLY fixing the mess like Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner, are mainly Jewish. But they aren't solving anything, just handing over the entire economy to their Jewish friends. So, why don't we have those factions yet?
Polistra: For one thing, we haven't really lost much wealth yet. This recession is still patchy; some regions and occupations are hopeless, while others are untouched. Mostly, we've been through 50 years of Communist control of culture and information. In 1933 most people were in touch with common sense and observed the world directly. They were better able to smell a lie or a scam. They got fooled, of course ... people can always be fooled ... but they didn't stay bamboozled as long as we do now. In 2009, most of us have been through at least 12 years of the public indoctrination system, and the elites have been through graduate super-indoctrination, all designed to confuse and stupefy the normal processes of logic.
Author: The elites believe in global warming and free trade.
Polistra: Says it all. And we get our information mostly through TV, which is carefully filtered. Facts that would expose the Wall Street Mafia do occasionally pop up, as with Reich ... or just this morning, Eliot Spitzer, but they are quickly swamped by the Mafia's own disinformation.
Author: I feel bad that I didn't spot what they were doing to Spitzer. The old honey-trap, catching him with a prostitute to ruin his reputation. I certainly know how that works, but I didn't think about it when they did it to Spitzer. I fell for it.
Polistra: Well, we can't always catch everything. You did go to college, after all ... and no matter how hard you try to resist, the confusers are always around us, always trying to overwhelm common sense.
Author: It's depressing. Orlov has it right: We're in the same condition as post-Soviet Russia. Nominal democracy, actual Mafiocracy.
Polistra: See the pattern?
Author: Huh?
Polistra: We expect the government to be somewhat competent. We expect it to respond to a military attack by punishing the attackers, and we expect it to respond to an economic attack by punishing the attackers.
Author: Oh. Yes, I see. In both cases the response is misdirected and puny. In both cases it looks initially like incompetence, then as more facts become available it looks like something worse than incompetence.
Polistra: Yep, that's the pattern.
Author: Well anyway, we've made it through 4 years here; we've been trying to observe the world as accurately as we can, trying to see facts and use logic. Nobody's stopped us yet.
Polistra: Yet. ¶ 9:10 PM
Author: Happy Blogday!
Polistra: Oh! This is, what, our 4th year?
Author: Yep. A few days late. We started March 15, 2005. I'd been writing for a few months in a different place, but 3/15/05 is when we started on Blogspot.
Polistra: I remember my first appearance here:
Author: You were still dressed in your store-bought outfit at that point. Most of that first month was devoted to the Terry Schiavo case.
Polistra: Still think that was a tragedy and a disaster. And as usual the forces of death won, by the old Orwellian gambit of making the good people look crazy.
Author: Even though the facts of the case were not quite as simple as I thought at the time, the point still stands.
Polistra: You know, one thing changed rather suddenly in the middle of these four years. At first we were going along with the war effort; in fact we were unhappy that the war wasn't being pushed harder.
Author: It was the lack of push that finally opened my eyes, caused me to look at the basics. Where did the attackers come from? Arabia. Who helped them? Lots of countries, including Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Germany. Where was Sheikh Osama? Probably Pakistan. Given that pattern, why were we working half-heartedly toward the futile goal of setting up democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while treating Arabia, Pakistan and Germany as allies? It simply made no sense. The friends and foes were wrong, the goal was pointless, and we were scrupulously avoiding the most obvious responses to an attack.
Polistra: A cautious war is one thing; could be attributed to Bush's old-rich Episcopalian heritage. Wouldn't be prudent and all that. But a completely misdirected war goes beyond weakness.
Author: Lots of other things happened in these years. Another turning point, I think, was Hurricane Katrina.
Polistra: That was more or less the last straw. After that, I couldn't fool myself into thinking that our government was only sloppy or incompetent. Around the end of '07 I tried to time-travel, but it didn't work. I disappeared for a bit, came back dressed in 1939 style, but I still don't know what happened. Apparently I had to get totally heartbroken before the ... gate or whatever it is would open. And that happened in June of '08.
Author: When you came back from your '39 vacation, you observed that McCain was the direct equivalent of Hoover, and Obama seemed to be parallel to FDR, in that he had the same teaching ability, the same morale-boosting ability.
Polistra: Yes, but he clearly doesn't have the same willingness to use the power of his office. I've said it a lot, but it bears repeating. Roosevelt closed down the banks on his SECOND DAY IN OFFICE, and a week later the banks were sorted out. Insolvent ones were closed, solid ones back in business. Now we're in Obama's SECOND MONTH and he's just today SUGGESTED a program for dealing with the bad banks.
Author: And the Wall Street Mafia cheered, which tells us that the program is a gift to the syndicate, not a punishment or abolition of the syndicate.
Polistra: We'll never know what's really going on. No newspaper will ever do the equivalent of a "Pentagon Papers" to expose the underlying blackmail or whatever it is.
Author: And the papers wonder why people stopped reading them.
Polistra: But some information does come through. While all that noise is holding our attention, Robert Reich has actually REPORTED a few actual FACTS that we aren't hearing from either brand. He points out that all of Obama's efforts to get more revenue are blocked by the Wall Street Mafia, and the administration is unwilling to overrule the Mafia.
Author: The Mafia's cute little pet "government" occasionally whines when the Mafia pulls the choke-chain too hard, but it always obeys.
Polistra: Okay, back to the question: we still have full-strength Hoovers, clinging desperately to their obscenely wealthy masters, screaming NO NO NO NO NO DON'T TAX ME MOMMY WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! like spoiled two-year-olds. And we have Obama behaving like an adult but without any force. He's a weak diluted shadow of Roosevelt. But we don't have Father Coughlin, and we don't have a Bonus Army or violent laborites. FDR was forceful and effective because he knew that Coughlin and the Bundists, and various Red factions, were active and growing. He knew that the country would fall in one direction or the other, red or brown, if he didn't get it right.
Author: Hmm. Yes, you'd think the situation would be even more ripe for a Coughlin type now. In 1933 the elites were mainly Episcopal Wasps like Mellon and Morgan. Now the people who caused this mess are mainly Jewish, and the people who are SUPPOSEDLY fixing the mess like Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner, are mainly Jewish. But they aren't solving anything, just handing over the entire economy to their Jewish friends. So, why don't we have those factions yet?
Polistra: For one thing, we haven't really lost much wealth yet. This recession is still patchy; some regions and occupations are hopeless, while others are untouched. Mostly, we've been through 50 years of Communist control of culture and information. In 1933 most people were in touch with common sense and observed the world directly. They were better able to smell a lie or a scam. They got fooled, of course ... people can always be fooled ... but they didn't stay bamboozled as long as we do now. In 2009, most of us have been through at least 12 years of the public indoctrination system, and the elites have been through graduate super-indoctrination, all designed to confuse and stupefy the normal processes of logic.
Author: The elites believe in global warming and free trade.
Polistra: Says it all. And we get our information mostly through TV, which is carefully filtered. Facts that would expose the Wall Street Mafia do occasionally pop up, as with Reich ... or just this morning, Eliot Spitzer, but they are quickly swamped by the Mafia's own disinformation.
Author: I feel bad that I didn't spot what they were doing to Spitzer. The old honey-trap, catching him with a prostitute to ruin his reputation. I certainly know how that works, but I didn't think about it when they did it to Spitzer. I fell for it.
Polistra: Well, we can't always catch everything. You did go to college, after all ... and no matter how hard you try to resist, the confusers are always around us, always trying to overwhelm common sense.
Author: It's depressing. Orlov has it right: We're in the same condition as post-Soviet Russia. Nominal democracy, actual Mafiocracy.
Polistra: See the pattern?
Author: Huh?
Polistra: We expect the government to be somewhat competent. We expect it to respond to a military attack by punishing the attackers, and we expect it to respond to an economic attack by punishing the attackers.
Author: Oh. Yes, I see. In both cases the response is misdirected and puny. In both cases it looks initially like incompetence, then as more facts become available it looks like something worse than incompetence.
Polistra: Yep, that's the pattern.
Author: Well anyway, we've made it through 4 years here; we've been trying to observe the world as accurately as we can, trying to see facts and use logic. Nobody's stopped us yet.
Polistra: Yet. ¶ 9:10 PM
Friday, March 20, 2009
So that's it
I've lived in this house for nearly 18 years, and I just now figured out something that happens every morning!
There's a school one block away. Every morning when school is on, the school sends out crossing guards. At 8:30 the crossing guards shout something; then at 8:59 they shout something else. Most of them turn the shouts into a sort of harmonious song, with the same melody as old street vendor songs like "Extry! Extry! Read all about it!" or "Old clothes for sale!"
I've always enjoyed the low-tech quaintness of it ... clearly an old tradition that doesn't make sense in the age of Twitter, but still carries on.
From the beginning I understood the 8:59 song, which is always "Last crossing! Last crossing! Last crossing!" But for 18 years I've never been able to interpret the 8:30 song. Different guards seem to say different words.
This morning I caught it at last. "Now serving breakfast! Now serving breakfast!" [Later: No, that was wrong. It's "Last crossing for breakfast."]
(The school provides a hot breakfast at 8:30 for kids who don't eat at home.)
= = = = =
Sidenote: Come to think of it, the tradition was already obsolete by 1970, because by then most people kept their windows and doors closed. An audible announcement made sense in the era of front porches, before central heat and air conditioning. In modern times, the only people who can hear the song are the parents and kids who are already walking toward the school; and by definition they don't need a 'time signal'. Still, I hope the tradition continues. It's an important reminder of neighborhood and locality. = = = = = More and better here. ¶ 8:37 AM
There's a school one block away. Every morning when school is on, the school sends out crossing guards. At 8:30 the crossing guards shout something; then at 8:59 they shout something else. Most of them turn the shouts into a sort of harmonious song, with the same melody as old street vendor songs like "Extry! Extry! Read all about it!" or "Old clothes for sale!"
I've always enjoyed the low-tech quaintness of it ... clearly an old tradition that doesn't make sense in the age of Twitter, but still carries on.
From the beginning I understood the 8:59 song, which is always "Last crossing! Last crossing! Last crossing!" But for 18 years I've never been able to interpret the 8:30 song. Different guards seem to say different words.
This morning I caught it at last. "Now serving breakfast! Now serving breakfast!" [Later: No, that was wrong. It's "Last crossing for breakfast."]
(The school provides a hot breakfast at 8:30 for kids who don't eat at home.)
= = = = =
Sidenote: Come to think of it, the tradition was already obsolete by 1970, because by then most people kept their windows and doors closed. An audible announcement made sense in the era of front porches, before central heat and air conditioning. In modern times, the only people who can hear the song are the parents and kids who are already walking toward the school; and by definition they don't need a 'time signal'. Still, I hope the tradition continues. It's an important reminder of neighborhood and locality. = = = = = More and better here. ¶ 8:37 AM
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Just stop this crap.
Today the brand-R talking point heads are full of delusional nonsense about how punishing AIG would violate the "constitutional" prohibitions against ex-post-facto laws and bills of attainder; and nonsense about breaking contracts.
This jabber only shows their own total ignorance. Tax law has been packed with retroactive provisions for decades, and tax law has been packed with provisions aimed specifically at one company or individual for decades. There's a whole cottage industry of lawyers who know how to draft a paragraph so it sounds general and universal but can only apply to one company.** Your precious Sultan Bush passed a retroactive deduction just a couple of years ago. But that was OK because it was your dear Sultan. And the Feds are never afraid to break a contract when they decide retroactively that it violates some idiotic discrimination provision, or just because they don't like it.
I'm goddamn tired of this shit.
1. The constitution hasn't been binding since 1803 and has been turned upside down since 1953, so there's no point in complaining that X is unconstitutional, no matter what X is. You might as well complain that X violates the Code of Hammurabi.
2. If you want to be seen as a leader or a thinker, you have to distinguish between actions and individuals. You can't say that a retroactive tax is angelic when My Dear Sultan does it but satanic when That Awful Socialist does it. Either it's good or it's bad, regardless of who does it.
This particular brand of delusion may make the dwindling Brand-R Cheerleaders happy, but it's purely disgusting to the growing crowd of Americans who don't adhere to either team. It only makes Obama look good, despite his increasingly apparent weakness, his unwillingness to take strong and necessary actions.
= = = = =
If the Republicans were really serious about restoring the rule of law, they would stop chanting Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes and instead join up with Senator Cornyn of Texas. Cornyn held a conference this week, shown on C-Span, dealing with lawsuit reform. Cornyn brought in witnesses to illustrate (1) how the Texas tort reform has restored access to medical care in that state (2) how much we lose directly from lawsuits each year (3) how much we lose culturally and indirectly. The direct losses are on the same scale as the Bush and Obama stimulus programs; the indirect losses are incalculable.
This would be an ideal crusade for a party that claims to be pro-American, and in practical terms ideal for Republicans because the trial lawyers exclusively support Dem campaigns. Controlling lawsuits would dramatically improve our economy and our culture. It would dramatically increase freedom for businesses, parents, teachers, Christians and plain old humans. It would save lives by making medical care more affordable. It would remove power from Communists. And it would do all this without ANY new spending or taxes.
So what's the downside? Damned if I know. I can only surmise that Republicans and conservatives are absolutely utterly insane and brain-damaged. Like an unfortunate stroke patient, they are stuck on one single meaningless phrase.
Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes
= = = = =
** Case in point: The Philly Inquirer did a series about the many "bills of attainder" in Reagan's 1986 tax reform act.
"...the 1986 act, proclaimed as a model of fairness by congressional tax writers, actually contained the largest number of tax giveaways in the 75-year history of the federal income tax. The special deals exempted select individuals and businesses from certain provisions in the new act that all other taxpayers were compelled to comply with - an act that raised taxes for millions of middle-class individuals and
families." ¶ 8:02 AM
This jabber only shows their own total ignorance. Tax law has been packed with retroactive provisions for decades, and tax law has been packed with provisions aimed specifically at one company or individual for decades. There's a whole cottage industry of lawyers who know how to draft a paragraph so it sounds general and universal but can only apply to one company.** Your precious Sultan Bush passed a retroactive deduction just a couple of years ago. But that was OK because it was your dear Sultan. And the Feds are never afraid to break a contract when they decide retroactively that it violates some idiotic discrimination provision, or just because they don't like it.
I'm goddamn tired of this shit.
1. The constitution hasn't been binding since 1803 and has been turned upside down since 1953, so there's no point in complaining that X is unconstitutional, no matter what X is. You might as well complain that X violates the Code of Hammurabi.
2. If you want to be seen as a leader or a thinker, you have to distinguish between actions and individuals. You can't say that a retroactive tax is angelic when My Dear Sultan does it but satanic when That Awful Socialist does it. Either it's good or it's bad, regardless of who does it.
This particular brand of delusion may make the dwindling Brand-R Cheerleaders happy, but it's purely disgusting to the growing crowd of Americans who don't adhere to either team. It only makes Obama look good, despite his increasingly apparent weakness, his unwillingness to take strong and necessary actions.
= = = = =
If the Republicans were really serious about restoring the rule of law, they would stop chanting Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes and instead join up with Senator Cornyn of Texas. Cornyn held a conference this week, shown on C-Span, dealing with lawsuit reform. Cornyn brought in witnesses to illustrate (1) how the Texas tort reform has restored access to medical care in that state (2) how much we lose directly from lawsuits each year (3) how much we lose culturally and indirectly. The direct losses are on the same scale as the Bush and Obama stimulus programs; the indirect losses are incalculable.
This would be an ideal crusade for a party that claims to be pro-American, and in practical terms ideal for Republicans because the trial lawyers exclusively support Dem campaigns. Controlling lawsuits would dramatically improve our economy and our culture. It would dramatically increase freedom for businesses, parents, teachers, Christians and plain old humans. It would save lives by making medical care more affordable. It would remove power from Communists. And it would do all this without ANY new spending or taxes.
So what's the downside? Damned if I know. I can only surmise that Republicans and conservatives are absolutely utterly insane and brain-damaged. Like an unfortunate stroke patient, they are stuck on one single meaningless phrase.
Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes Zero Zip Nada Taxes
= = = = =
** Case in point: The Philly Inquirer did a series about the many "bills of attainder" in Reagan's 1986 tax reform act.
"...the 1986 act, proclaimed as a model of fairness by congressional tax writers, actually contained the largest number of tax giveaways in the 75-year history of the federal income tax. The special deals exempted select individuals and businesses from certain provisions in the new act that all other taxpayers were compelled to comply with - an act that raised taxes for millions of middle-class individuals and
families." ¶ 8:02 AM
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Language bulletin
A week ago Rod Dreher discussed a news article about domestic violence in a lesbian couple in Massachusetts. What made the article deeply weird was the constant use of the phrase "her wife".
Professor Polistra wondered why this combination seemed so absolutely discordant on a grammatical level, leaving aside all cultural questions. After all, English doesn't have grammatical agreement based on gender, so it's not wrong in the same way as "el esposa" in Spanish or "der Frau" in German.
The answer seems to lie in connectivity requirements. A husband can possess one or more wives; a wife can possess one or more husbands. But you just can't connect one wife with another.
The newspaper article could have avoided the problem by using spouse, which doesn't have such restrictions.
A week ago Rod Dreher discussed a news article about domestic violence in a lesbian couple in Massachusetts. What made the article deeply weird was the constant use of the phrase "her wife".
Professor Polistra wondered why this combination seemed so absolutely discordant on a grammatical level, leaving aside all cultural questions. After all, English doesn't have grammatical agreement based on gender, so it's not wrong in the same way as "el esposa" in Spanish or "der Frau" in German.
The answer seems to lie in connectivity requirements. A husband can possess one or more wives; a wife can possess one or more husbands. But you just can't connect one wife with another.
The newspaper article could have avoided the problem by using spouse, which doesn't have such restrictions.
Labels: Language update
¶ 9:27 PM
Unthinkable
Polistra's old Law of the Unthinkable: When the elites agree uniformly that X is unthinkable, then X is true and necessary.
The elites all agree that letting AIG fail is unthinkable.
Doesn't wash, even on the face of it. As Ben Stein and others have pointed out, the "honest" part of AIG is not really an insurance company but a holding company for several insurance companies. Spin off those companies, then close and confiscate the rest. If that causes a loss to hedge funds, too fucking bad. Hedge funds are gamblers by definition and they supposedly expect to lose on occasion. Well, this is a great occasion to let them lose billions or trillions or quadrillions or whatever the imaginary number is.
Obviously that's not the real reason why we need to continue these monstrous thefts. Sooner or later we'll get the real reason.
= = = = =
Refreshing exception to the Unthinkable chorus: Rep Minnick of Idaho. In this morning's hearing on bonuses, Minnick said simply and flatly that we should allow AIG to go bankrupt and appoint a receiver to distribute the assets and debts. Bravo, Walt!
= = = = =
Obama's short 'front lawn' speech is exactly on point ... "We need to move away from a business model that generates paper wealth, and move toward generating real wealth." Trouble is, he's not doing anything to make this happen. He's not closing down and jailing the paper-wealth operators, and his proposals for carbon cap scams are just a new paper-wealth bubble. Good words, bad actions. ¶ 6:58 AM
Polistra's old Law of the Unthinkable: When the elites agree uniformly that X is unthinkable, then X is true and necessary.
The elites all agree that letting AIG fail is unthinkable.
Doesn't wash, even on the face of it. As Ben Stein and others have pointed out, the "honest" part of AIG is not really an insurance company but a holding company for several insurance companies. Spin off those companies, then close and confiscate the rest. If that causes a loss to hedge funds, too fucking bad. Hedge funds are gamblers by definition and they supposedly expect to lose on occasion. Well, this is a great occasion to let them lose billions or trillions or quadrillions or whatever the imaginary number is.
Obviously that's not the real reason why we need to continue these monstrous thefts. Sooner or later we'll get the real reason.
= = = = =
Refreshing exception to the Unthinkable chorus: Rep Minnick of Idaho. In this morning's hearing on bonuses, Minnick said simply and flatly that we should allow AIG to go bankrupt and appoint a receiver to distribute the assets and debts. Bravo, Walt!
= = = = =
Obama's short 'front lawn' speech is exactly on point ... "We need to move away from a business model that generates paper wealth, and move toward generating real wealth." Trouble is, he's not doing anything to make this happen. He's not closing down and jailing the paper-wealth operators, and his proposals for carbon cap scams are just a new paper-wealth bubble. Good words, bad actions. ¶ 6:58 AM
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Bonuses
Well, Grassley has it right. At least in terms of wishful implication.
Syllogism:
If any members of the Wall Street Mafia were not hardened and habitual criminals, we would have already seen a number of suicides, we would have seen some actual TAKING of responsibility. Since we have not seen any suicides, and we have only heard TALKING of responsibility, we know for a fact that the Wall Street Mafia consists solely and exclusively of hardened and habitual criminals.
QED.
However, the focus on bonuses is a clever red herring led by Obama, a distraction from the real problem. Americans are aiming their outrage at those unnamed AIG executives, when they should be outraged at the regulators and legislators who knew about the crimes and looked the other way.
Chris Cox at SEC should be a prime target of shame. Cox should be encouraged to jump. All of the Congs and Senators who voted for the first TARP should at least resign so they can be replaced with more honest and ethical people, such as randomly chosen murderers and thieves.
None of this will happen. Obama, after showing an ever-so-brief promise of following FDR, turns out to be Bush III. No action, no change, no control, no punishment for criminals. Just the same old idiotic optimism and and the same old blackmail payments to our enemies.
"The fundamentals of our economy are sound."
Translation:
"The Swiss bank account of Sheikh Osama is overflowing, praise Allah." ¶ 9:18 AM
Syllogism:
If any members of the Wall Street Mafia were not hardened and habitual criminals, we would have already seen a number of suicides, we would have seen some actual TAKING of responsibility. Since we have not seen any suicides, and we have only heard TALKING of responsibility, we know for a fact that the Wall Street Mafia consists solely and exclusively of hardened and habitual criminals.
QED.
However, the focus on bonuses is a clever red herring led by Obama, a distraction from the real problem. Americans are aiming their outrage at those unnamed AIG executives, when they should be outraged at the regulators and legislators who knew about the crimes and looked the other way.
Chris Cox at SEC should be a prime target of shame. Cox should be encouraged to jump. All of the Congs and Senators who voted for the first TARP should at least resign so they can be replaced with more honest and ethical people, such as randomly chosen murderers and thieves.
None of this will happen. Obama, after showing an ever-so-brief promise of following FDR, turns out to be Bush III. No action, no change, no control, no punishment for criminals. Just the same old idiotic optimism and and the same old blackmail payments to our enemies.
"The fundamentals of our economy are sound."
Translation:
"The Swiss bank account of Sheikh Osama is overflowing, praise Allah." ¶ 9:18 AM
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Kashkari Konquers Kucinich
Listening to a C-Span replay of the Congressional hearing on Wed, where Shotgun Paulson's strange little Mini-me faced questions that sounded tough. Unfortunately the questions were not genuinely tough, and the Congresscritters missed a great opportunity to push Kashkari.
Specifically: Kucinich asked Kashkari why we allowed Bank of America to use TARP funds to purchase a Chinese construction company. Good question, and Kucinich framed it in a good nationalist way. Congress intended TARP to help America, not to help China.
Shotgun's Mini-me responded that money is fungible, that you can't trace where each dollar goes; also that he didn't know and didn't care where the money went.
Kucinich showed appropriate outrage, but failed to make the one argument that would have spiked Mini-me. I didn't hear it from the other Congs either.
Here's the irrefutable argument:
"Yes, I understand that money is fungible. But every single Federal subsidy to businesses, schools or individuals places limits on their actions. He who pays the piper calls the tune, which is entirely reasonable. If a school takes Fed money, it must implement special-ed programs. If a university takes Fed research money, it must follow affirmative action requirements and research ethics rules. If a defense contractor takes Fed money, it must favor minority subcontractors. If an individual takes unemployment insurance, he has to look for work. Every single subsidy has similar requirements, and if you don't want to follow those rules, you have to get your money elsewhere. Why then should TARP be the single exception to this standard procedure? It doesn't matter which dollar goes where; if you're taking a subsidy, you have to follow certain rules."
= = = = =
Sidenote: In watching these hearings and other Cong action on Shotgun's Great Nation Robbery, I've come to like and respect Elijah Cummings of Maryland. Cummings has a way of getting straight to the heart of a question, speaking for the common man in common language. Refreshing amid the cautious lawyer-written crap from most other politicians.
Specifically: Kucinich asked Kashkari why we allowed Bank of America to use TARP funds to purchase a Chinese construction company. Good question, and Kucinich framed it in a good nationalist way. Congress intended TARP to help America, not to help China.
Shotgun's Mini-me responded that money is fungible, that you can't trace where each dollar goes; also that he didn't know and didn't care where the money went.
Kucinich showed appropriate outrage, but failed to make the one argument that would have spiked Mini-me. I didn't hear it from the other Congs either.
Here's the irrefutable argument:
"Yes, I understand that money is fungible. But every single Federal subsidy to businesses, schools or individuals places limits on their actions. He who pays the piper calls the tune, which is entirely reasonable. If a school takes Fed money, it must implement special-ed programs. If a university takes Fed research money, it must follow affirmative action requirements and research ethics rules. If a defense contractor takes Fed money, it must favor minority subcontractors. If an individual takes unemployment insurance, he has to look for work. Every single subsidy has similar requirements, and if you don't want to follow those rules, you have to get your money elsewhere. Why then should TARP be the single exception to this standard procedure? It doesn't matter which dollar goes where; if you're taking a subsidy, you have to follow certain rules."
= = = = =
Sidenote: In watching these hearings and other Cong action on Shotgun's Great Nation Robbery, I've come to like and respect Elijah Cummings of Maryland. Cummings has a way of getting straight to the heart of a question, speaking for the common man in common language. Refreshing amid the cautious lawyer-written crap from most other politicians.
Labels: Ethics
¶ 10:28 AM
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Unspeakable idiocy
Listening to the "G20 summit" on C-Span. Most of these leaders are repeating the same mantra over and over:
"We have an unprecedented situation in which all developed countries have gone into recession together. Therefore we need to avoid all tendencies toward protectionism."
Think about this for just a second. Put it in a different context.
"We have an unprecedented situation in which all the town-houses on this block burned down because they were connected. The fire passed through open doors between the units. Therefore we need to rebuild them exactly the same way with open doors between the units. We need to avoid all tendencies toward brick firewalls. This will prevent them from burning down again."
Sounds stupid, eh?
When a system is closely coupled, a problem in one part quickly spreads to other parts. You don't fix this by linking the parts more intimately together. You solve it by "modularity", by decoupling the parts as far as possible. This is normal practice in construction, engineering and programming, but it's UNTHINKABLE UNTHINKABLE UNTHINKABLE UNTHINKABLE among economists.
Conclusion: Economists are genocidally stupid. ¶ 9:32 AM
"We have an unprecedented situation in which all developed countries have gone into recession together. Therefore we need to avoid all tendencies toward protectionism."
Think about this for just a second. Put it in a different context.
"We have an unprecedented situation in which all the town-houses on this block burned down because they were connected. The fire passed through open doors between the units. Therefore we need to rebuild them exactly the same way with open doors between the units. We need to avoid all tendencies toward brick firewalls. This will prevent them from burning down again."
Sounds stupid, eh?
When a system is closely coupled, a problem in one part quickly spreads to other parts. You don't fix this by linking the parts more intimately together. You solve it by "modularity", by decoupling the parts as far as possible. This is normal practice in construction, engineering and programming, but it's UNTHINKABLE UNTHINKABLE UNTHINKABLE UNTHINKABLE among economists.
Conclusion: Economists are genocidally stupid. ¶ 9:32 AM
Friday, March 13, 2009
Silver bullets
The Obama team is fond of saying that there are no silver bullets to solve our energy and economic problems. Generally good advice, but in fact there is a silver bullet for energy, and it even looks like a silver bullet!
The Lone Polistranger is showing an actual-size core section of a Hyperion mini-reactor. These are fully self-contained nuclear power capsules, developed at Los Alamos and already commercially available. Each reactor gives enough electricity for 20,000 average households. This means that Spokane could be fully powered with a field of 15 Hyperions. The reactor never needs to be opened; when its fuel is used up (perhaps 5 years) the whole module is pulled out and replaced with a new one.
Present cost is about $25 million per unit, which will presumably drop when larger-scale production is possible. ¶ 6:31 PM
The Lone Polistranger is showing an actual-size core section of a Hyperion mini-reactor. These are fully self-contained nuclear power capsules, developed at Los Alamos and already commercially available. Each reactor gives enough electricity for 20,000 average households. This means that Spokane could be fully powered with a field of 15 Hyperions. The reactor never needs to be opened; when its fuel is used up (perhaps 5 years) the whole module is pulled out and replaced with a new one.
Present cost is about $25 million per unit, which will presumably drop when larger-scale production is possible. ¶ 6:31 PM
Road closed, detour open
An interesting movement to repeal the Electoral College is flying under the radar in many state legislatures. The 'National Popular Vote Interstate Compact' aims to amend the constitution through an agreement between states.
Of course this isn't how the original written constitution wants an amendment to be passed; the original procedure has two options, both of which must run through Congress. But the states clearly understand that Congress now represents China, so anything that helps America must detour around Congress.
So a number of states have decided to pass an amendment requiring popular vote, and to pass it WITHOUT the help of Congress. The amendment doesn't precisely create a new form of election, and it doesn't change the Constitution's text. [Which wouldn't matter anyway since the text is unused and abandoned.]
Here's how it works:
In other words, the states in the compact will still cast electoral votes, but they will do it on the basis of the total popular vote, not on the basis of their own state vote. Non-participating states will still use the old method, but their votes won't matter. As the participants increase, and the consequences of non-participation become clear, other states will fall in line formally or informally.
I hadn't heard of this movement until I noticed a brief news item today about the Oregon state house passing its version of the amendment. Turns out that the Wash state senate passed its version recently as well. So far, 4 states (including Ill) have fully enacted the law, 4 (including Calif) have passed the legislature but not the governor, and 8 (including Wash and Ore) have passed one house of the legislature. The bill has been at least introduced in all but three states.
= = = = =
Sidenote:
The last substantive amendment was the 21st in 1934, which repealed the 18th. Since then, with one minor exception, all actual changes in the Constitution have been made by Communist saboteurs wearing black robes, and nobody has challenged the authority of the saboteurs. The minor exception is in the area of "terms and conditions of employment", such as presidential succession and Congressional pay. We've had a few formal amendments in those areas since 1934, because for some reason the black-robed saboteurs are not interested in changing those bits of the text, and for some reason the government decided to obey those bits of the text while brazenly disobeying everything else in the document. I suspect the saboteurs leave those bits alone because they understand that those bits are contributing to our collapse; why change something that is already serving your evil ends? The saboteurs didn't need to erase those bits anyway. Bush and Cheney erased one piece: P and VP aren't supposed to be from the same state. Obama has carved out another piece, because his natural-born citizenship was genuinely in doubt and was not officially checked by anyone. ¶ 11:08 AM
Of course this isn't how the original written constitution wants an amendment to be passed; the original procedure has two options, both of which must run through Congress. But the states clearly understand that Congress now represents China, so anything that helps America must detour around Congress.
So a number of states have decided to pass an amendment requiring popular vote, and to pass it WITHOUT the help of Congress. The amendment doesn't precisely create a new form of election, and it doesn't change the Constitution's text. [Which wouldn't matter anyway since the text is unused and abandoned.]
Here's how it works:
States joining the compact will continue to award their electoral votes in their current manner until the compact has been joined by enough states to represent a controlling majority of the Electoral College (currently 270 electoral votes). After that point, all of the electoral votes of the member states would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
In other words, the states in the compact will still cast electoral votes, but they will do it on the basis of the total popular vote, not on the basis of their own state vote. Non-participating states will still use the old method, but their votes won't matter. As the participants increase, and the consequences of non-participation become clear, other states will fall in line formally or informally.
I hadn't heard of this movement until I noticed a brief news item today about the Oregon state house passing its version of the amendment. Turns out that the Wash state senate passed its version recently as well. So far, 4 states (including Ill) have fully enacted the law, 4 (including Calif) have passed the legislature but not the governor, and 8 (including Wash and Ore) have passed one house of the legislature. The bill has been at least introduced in all but three states.
= = = = =
Sidenote:
The last substantive amendment was the 21st in 1934, which repealed the 18th. Since then, with one minor exception, all actual changes in the Constitution have been made by Communist saboteurs wearing black robes, and nobody has challenged the authority of the saboteurs. The minor exception is in the area of "terms and conditions of employment", such as presidential succession and Congressional pay. We've had a few formal amendments in those areas since 1934, because for some reason the black-robed saboteurs are not interested in changing those bits of the text, and for some reason the government decided to obey those bits of the text while brazenly disobeying everything else in the document. I suspect the saboteurs leave those bits alone because they understand that those bits are contributing to our collapse; why change something that is already serving your evil ends? The saboteurs didn't need to erase those bits anyway. Bush and Cheney erased one piece: P and VP aren't supposed to be from the same state. Obama has carved out another piece, because his natural-born citizenship was genuinely in doubt and was not officially checked by anyone. ¶ 11:08 AM
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Justice for Bernie
This article on the sentencing of Bernie Madoff is enlightening.
In most cases the Federal white-collar prisons are easy time, decent accommodations for people who deserve an indecent life. Normally I wish they could spend time in a serious prison, mingle with serious criminals, receive a daily beating and reaming. But for Bernie, who worked his scam at country clubs, the country club prison will be exactly what he deserves. Why? Because he won't meet any rich Jews in a serious prison, but he'll meet plenty in a country club prison.
Deeeeee-licious. ¶ 8:17 AM
In most cases the Federal white-collar prisons are easy time, decent accommodations for people who deserve an indecent life. Normally I wish they could spend time in a serious prison, mingle with serious criminals, receive a daily beating and reaming. But for Bernie, who worked his scam at country clubs, the country club prison will be exactly what he deserves. Why? Because he won't meet any rich Jews in a serious prison, but he'll meet plenty in a country club prison.
"Madoff isn't going to be real popular," said Larry Levine, who served 10 years in federal prisons for securities fraud and narcotics trafficking and now advises convicts on surviving time behind bars. "All the guys there will have wives or parents who are losing their homes or their jobs or who can't send money to them anymore. Everybody's going to be blaming Bernie."
Deeeeee-licious. ¶ 8:17 AM
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Pork and Localism
Polistra loves pork projects and has said so often.
Why? Three reasons:
1. These little projects are a concrete service that a representative can perform for his own district. If you break this closed circle of votes for service, the only thing that remains is big symbolic agendas that mean nothing in the long run. Projects are peculiarly local, with strictly local benefits. Without visible local benefit as one side of the transaction, you have to evaluate a representative on his verbal adherence to your chosen side of abstract credos like abortion, torture or civil rights; or just plain party loyalty. It's easy to see why the talking-point-heads want it this way.
2. When the voter's disgust is focused on a little $250,000 project to evaluate pig smell or cow farts, his contempt is distracted from the monstrous $3 trillion robbery committed by Shotgun Paulson and continued by Bugsy Geithner. It's easy to see why Shotgun and Bugsy want it this way.
3. Currently most important: Government jobs are jobs, for heaven's sake. Even the short-term jobs provided to the scientist and research assistant evaluating cow farts, or to the carpenters building the Elvis Museum, are JOBS. These jobs add security to the family, friends and neighbors of the scientist, research assistant, and carpenters. And less concretely, they bolster loyalty to the country and the government. If you want a stable country, you want to keep the residents, especially the young men, solidly employed. And ideally you want their employment to be tied to their neighborhood and their country, so they feel invested in this land. You don't want them unemployed, especially when they know that their jobs flew off to China. It's not so easy to see why Party leaders want an unstable country, unless they are strictly and totally loyal to China.
¶ 8:34 AM
Polistra loves pork projects and has said so often.
Why? Three reasons:
1. These little projects are a concrete service that a representative can perform for his own district. If you break this closed circle of votes for service, the only thing that remains is big symbolic agendas that mean nothing in the long run. Projects are peculiarly local, with strictly local benefits. Without visible local benefit as one side of the transaction, you have to evaluate a representative on his verbal adherence to your chosen side of abstract credos like abortion, torture or civil rights; or just plain party loyalty. It's easy to see why the talking-point-heads want it this way.
2. When the voter's disgust is focused on a little $250,000 project to evaluate pig smell or cow farts, his contempt is distracted from the monstrous $3 trillion robbery committed by Shotgun Paulson and continued by Bugsy Geithner. It's easy to see why Shotgun and Bugsy want it this way.
3. Currently most important: Government jobs are jobs, for heaven's sake. Even the short-term jobs provided to the scientist and research assistant evaluating cow farts, or to the carpenters building the Elvis Museum, are JOBS. These jobs add security to the family, friends and neighbors of the scientist, research assistant, and carpenters. And less concretely, they bolster loyalty to the country and the government. If you want a stable country, you want to keep the residents, especially the young men, solidly employed. And ideally you want their employment to be tied to their neighborhood and their country, so they feel invested in this land. You don't want them unemployed, especially when they know that their jobs flew off to China. It's not so easy to see why Party leaders want an unstable country, unless they are strictly and totally loyal to China.
¶ 8:34 AM
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama on education
Today Obama came out in support of charter schools, merit pay for teachers, and longer school days. Excellent.
Remains to be seen whether he will carry through with action, but all of these moves will actually improve education.
Bush's education agenda was Teddy Kennedy's education agenda. Admittedly, putting a Republican name on Emperor Teddy's program made it unpopular among the teacher unions; nevertheless, the predictable result was bad for education. No surprise. Everything Emperor Teddy did was evil, whether the program was "rebranded" or not.
This crossover phenomenon is also no surprise. If you want to see the Dem agenda implemented, elect a Republican, and vice versa. Most Americans understood this before the idiotic talking-point-heads hijacked our political dialogue. I remember my father discussing it in the early '60s, referring to JFK and Nixon. ¶ 12:54 PM
Remains to be seen whether he will carry through with action, but all of these moves will actually improve education.
Bush's education agenda was Teddy Kennedy's education agenda. Admittedly, putting a Republican name on Emperor Teddy's program made it unpopular among the teacher unions; nevertheless, the predictable result was bad for education. No surprise. Everything Emperor Teddy did was evil, whether the program was "rebranded" or not.
This crossover phenomenon is also no surprise. If you want to see the Dem agenda implemented, elect a Republican, and vice versa. Most Americans understood this before the idiotic talking-point-heads hijacked our political dialogue. I remember my father discussing it in the early '60s, referring to JFK and Nixon. ¶ 12:54 PM
Cheerful Czechs
Cheerful Czechs driving and singing just before WW2:
1
2
3
Doesn't make a lick of sense, but it's fun. ¶ 10:51 AM
1
2
3
Doesn't make a lick of sense, but it's fun. ¶ 10:51 AM
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Classic distortion
The cable "news" channels are pulling a classic bit of propagandistic distortion on the stem-cell controversy.
First, the Bush order did not prohibit all embryonic stem-cell research; it only prohibited federal funding for some lines of ESC. In other words, it was a purely symbolic ploy, giving cynical lip service to evangelical and Catholic voting blocs.
The "news" channels are universally and uniformly describing the Bush order as "prohibiting all stem-cell research."
Second, the best argument against ESC is that it's unnecessary. Because ESC research was not prohibited, it has proceeded under private funding and in other countries. And despite all this research, ESC remains only a potential life-saver; the other types of stem-cell therapy (from cord blood or from the patient's own cells) are yielding actual cures.
The "news" channels never mention this fact, not even once. Their sole description of the anti-ESC argument is as follows, verbatim: "Those Neanderthal conservative critics somehow believe, for some weird and incomprehensible reason, that killing embryos is somehow the same thing as killing a human being. Of course we smart people know better, don't we? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha."
When scientists are mainly concerned with doing science, they put most of their resources into pursuing the best and quickest paths to the desired result, as common sense would dictate. In this case the best and quickest path, regardless of moral questions, is cord blood and adult cells. The fact that American "scientists" are fiercely uninterested in non-embryonic methods tells us all we need to know. American "scientists" are standing on the giant shoulders of their noble forebear and mentor, Dr. Josef Mengele. ¶ 7:03 AM
First, the Bush order did not prohibit all embryonic stem-cell research; it only prohibited federal funding for some lines of ESC. In other words, it was a purely symbolic ploy, giving cynical lip service to evangelical and Catholic voting blocs.
The "news" channels are universally and uniformly describing the Bush order as "prohibiting all stem-cell research."
Second, the best argument against ESC is that it's unnecessary. Because ESC research was not prohibited, it has proceeded under private funding and in other countries. And despite all this research, ESC remains only a potential life-saver; the other types of stem-cell therapy (from cord blood or from the patient's own cells) are yielding actual cures.
The "news" channels never mention this fact, not even once. Their sole description of the anti-ESC argument is as follows, verbatim: "Those Neanderthal conservative critics somehow believe, for some weird and incomprehensible reason, that killing embryos is somehow the same thing as killing a human being. Of course we smart people know better, don't we? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha."
When scientists are mainly concerned with doing science, they put most of their resources into pursuing the best and quickest paths to the desired result, as common sense would dictate. In this case the best and quickest path, regardless of moral questions, is cord blood and adult cells. The fact that American "scientists" are fiercely uninterested in non-embryonic methods tells us all we need to know. American "scientists" are standing on the giant shoulders of their noble forebear and mentor, Dr. Josef Mengele. ¶ 7:03 AM
Friday, March 06, 2009
Signs of insanity
Spokane's city government is always incompetent, but now they have gone totally loony. The council is determined to pass an anti-sign ordinance forbidding those LCD flashing signs that give time, temperature, information, and advertising. As far as I can tell, no actual citizens wanted this ordinance. Hundreds of businesses and citizens have protested against the ordinance. Nevertheless, the council is still moving forward.
At the same time, they have decided to stretch the interpretation of an old ordinance to prohibit ads on bus stop benches. The transit authority gets a significant part of its operating budget from those ads; the benches don't cost any tax money at all; without the support of advertising, the transit authority has to remove the benches.
Yessir, just the right pair of moves while recession deepens. Make it harder to do business, take money and comfort away from public transit, while saving nothing for the taxpayers.
Yes, by all means, let's commit civic suicide. Fun, fun, fun. ¶ 11:31 AM
At the same time, they have decided to stretch the interpretation of an old ordinance to prohibit ads on bus stop benches. The transit authority gets a significant part of its operating budget from those ads; the benches don't cost any tax money at all; without the support of advertising, the transit authority has to remove the benches.
Yessir, just the right pair of moves while recession deepens. Make it harder to do business, take money and comfort away from public transit, while saving nothing for the taxpayers.
Yes, by all means, let's commit civic suicide. Fun, fun, fun. ¶ 11:31 AM
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Kudos to ABC news.....
On tonight's ABC news, Chris Bury did an excellent feature on small-town banks, showing that they are still operating normally, still making loans at a normal rate, still earning good profits, neither wanting nor needing a bailout.
It's highly important to hold this fact in the foreground. The Wall Street Mafia and its pet "government" want us to believe that the entire banking sector is in trouble. Nope, only the criminals are in trouble, and they're not in nearly enough trouble. They should be in jail. They should be jumping from skyscrapers. ¶ 8:43 PM
It's highly important to hold this fact in the foreground. The Wall Street Mafia and its pet "government" want us to believe that the entire banking sector is in trouble. Nope, only the criminals are in trouble, and they're not in nearly enough trouble. They should be in jail. They should be jumping from skyscrapers. ¶ 8:43 PM
Box-o-stox
Polistra has been hammering for quite a while on the destructive qualities of the stock market. Companies that participate in stock exchanges lose their bearings; they focus solely on pleasing the shareholders instead of pleasing the customers and employees. Cost-cutting is the only goal, which leads them to use cheap overseas labor and to abandon research and development.
We see the resulting wreckage all around us.
Closely-held companies work better. A business run by its founding family, or owned by a private equity fund, is better able to focus on satisfying its employees and customers.
Polistra wonders if we can somehow broaden or democratize the private-equity holding, restore the basic purpose of selling shares to bring in capital ... but without the insanity of the Wall Street Casino. Preferred stock comes close, but it still has a variable share price which invites speculation.
Putting it simply, how do you make a stock more like a savings account?
Her idea: A fixed-price share that can't be transferred. You can return it to the company for the original price but you can't sell it to anyone else. The only thing you expect from this share is possible dividends. Both the company and the shareholder would then focus solely on the dividend, because insufficient dividends would mean more refunds.
This idea has obvious problems, but it's still closer to sanity and productivity than the current Casino.
Polistra has been hammering for quite a while on the destructive qualities of the stock market. Companies that participate in stock exchanges lose their bearings; they focus solely on pleasing the shareholders instead of pleasing the customers and employees. Cost-cutting is the only goal, which leads them to use cheap overseas labor and to abandon research and development.
We see the resulting wreckage all around us.
Closely-held companies work better. A business run by its founding family, or owned by a private equity fund, is better able to focus on satisfying its employees and customers.
Polistra wonders if we can somehow broaden or democratize the private-equity holding, restore the basic purpose of selling shares to bring in capital ... but without the insanity of the Wall Street Casino. Preferred stock comes close, but it still has a variable share price which invites speculation.
Putting it simply, how do you make a stock more like a savings account?
Her idea: A fixed-price share that can't be transferred. You can return it to the company for the original price but you can't sell it to anyone else. The only thing you expect from this share is possible dividends. Both the company and the shareholder would then focus solely on the dividend, because insufficient dividends would mean more refunds.
This idea has obvious problems, but it's still closer to sanity and productivity than the current Casino.
Labels: the broken circle
¶ 9:01 AM
What killed localism?
Rod Dreher quotes a Patrick Deneen article which accuses the "new isolationists" of free-riding. Deneen says we are taking advantage of the system that made it possible for us to have the luxurious choice of opting out.
I wrote this comment on Dreher's blog, and want to preserve it here for my own reference if nothing else:
= = = = =
Deneen is, as always, deep and unique. But there's a timeline problem in his accusation of free-riding against the localists. He says we are taking advantage of all the goodies (mobility, communication, occupational choice) provided by modernity, while trying to escape from deracination. He has conflated two different "packages".
Occupational choice has been an American feature from the start. Mobility and communication came in 1860 with the telegraph and railroad. But local institutions and Tocqueville's "mediators" were still perfectly strong and vibrant in 1950. It wasn't mobility and communication that killed the lodge and the church. It was a Leninist Sabotage Weapon called "The Supreme Court" that killed the lodge and the church.
If we want to restore localism, we don't need to eliminate the telegraph, the railroad and the internet. We do need to eliminate the Leninist Sabotage Weapon, or more precisely we need to escape the clutches of its secret police.
(i.e. plaintiff lawyers, social workers, public schools.)
Since both political "parties" are solidly Leninist (as you [Rod] brilliantly pointed
out in your discussion of Rush's CPAC speech) the answer must be either a third party determined to repeal bad laws, or secession. ¶ 7:49 AM
I wrote this comment on Dreher's blog, and want to preserve it here for my own reference if nothing else:
= = = = =
Deneen is, as always, deep and unique. But there's a timeline problem in his accusation of free-riding against the localists. He says we are taking advantage of all the goodies (mobility, communication, occupational choice) provided by modernity, while trying to escape from deracination. He has conflated two different "packages".
Occupational choice has been an American feature from the start. Mobility and communication came in 1860 with the telegraph and railroad. But local institutions and Tocqueville's "mediators" were still perfectly strong and vibrant in 1950. It wasn't mobility and communication that killed the lodge and the church. It was a Leninist Sabotage Weapon called "The Supreme Court" that killed the lodge and the church.
If we want to restore localism, we don't need to eliminate the telegraph, the railroad and the internet. We do need to eliminate the Leninist Sabotage Weapon, or more precisely we need to escape the clutches of its secret police.
(i.e. plaintiff lawyers, social workers, public schools.)
Since both political "parties" are solidly Leninist (as you [Rod] brilliantly pointed
out in your discussion of Rush's CPAC speech) the answer must be either a third party determined to repeal bad laws, or secession. ¶ 7:49 AM
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Bucking the trend
Buck Knives, a well-known brand of sporting and utility knives, has been based in Post Falls near Spokane for several years. Until recently Buck ran its manufacturing in Taiwan. The owner (great-grandson of the founder) has decided to bring the work back home, partly for moral reasons and partly for business reasons.
Bravo, Mr Buck!
Story and video here. ¶ 9:17 AM
Bravo, Mr Buck!
Story and video here. ¶ 9:17 AM
Sir Edward
Poor Polistra made the mistake of listening to Commissar Gordon Brown's speech this morning. ¶ 8:45 AM
Poor Polistra made the mistake of listening to Commissar Gordon Brown's speech this morning. ¶ 8:45 AM
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Oh come now.
Listening to some asshole from the SEC interviewed on C-Span. Asshole just said "The investment industry is the most highly regulated in the US, second only to the nuclear power industry."
Pure reagent-quality ratshit.
The American nuclear power industry has shown what happens with strong and competent regulation. When the worst-case accident happened at Three Mile Island, no radioactivity escaped, nobody was killed.
You can't prevent every accident, but NRC regs guaranteed that the containment structure was strong enough to avoid deaths when the accident came.
The SEC operates more like Soviet nuclear power regulators. Bribes and loyalty matter more than rules and engineering. When the worst-case accident happened at Chernobyl, there was nothing to contain it. Tens of thousands died.
If investment banking were really regulated to NRC standards, Bernie Madoff would have been detected and stopped when his first customer reported something suspicious. The (figurative) containment structure would have prevented further losses. And the galactic-scale crimes and robberies committed by AIG would not have been allowed to start. Anyone with the tiniest grasp of arithmetic and common sense could tell that a "credit default swap" was a monstrous fraud. It was called a "swap" to escape state insurance regulations. What more do you need to know, for Christ's sweet sake?????????
If Obama were serious about fixing this mess, he would fire the entire SEC and start over. Replace the staff with randomly chosen unemployed blue-collar workers. Cooks, beauticians, janitors. They won't be fooled by a con-man like Madoff. ¶ 6:54 AM
Pure reagent-quality ratshit.
The American nuclear power industry has shown what happens with strong and competent regulation. When the worst-case accident happened at Three Mile Island, no radioactivity escaped, nobody was killed.
You can't prevent every accident, but NRC regs guaranteed that the containment structure was strong enough to avoid deaths when the accident came.
The SEC operates more like Soviet nuclear power regulators. Bribes and loyalty matter more than rules and engineering. When the worst-case accident happened at Chernobyl, there was nothing to contain it. Tens of thousands died.
If investment banking were really regulated to NRC standards, Bernie Madoff would have been detected and stopped when his first customer reported something suspicious. The (figurative) containment structure would have prevented further losses. And the galactic-scale crimes and robberies committed by AIG would not have been allowed to start. Anyone with the tiniest grasp of arithmetic and common sense could tell that a "credit default swap" was a monstrous fraud. It was called a "swap" to escape state insurance regulations. What more do you need to know, for Christ's sweet sake?????????
If Obama were serious about fixing this mess, he would fire the entire SEC and start over. Replace the staff with randomly chosen unemployed blue-collar workers. Cooks, beauticians, janitors. They won't be fooled by a con-man like Madoff. ¶ 6:54 AM
Monday, March 02, 2009
Even New Yorkers can learn!
Rich Lowry at NRO writes:
Back in September (before the election) Polistra wrote:
Polistra is pleased to see that even New York Metrosexuals are capable of understanding reality, given a little extra time.
A normal and sane ruler -- like FDR -- knows that you need to catch criminals and take them out of circulation before you can start to restore the trust and confidence of the victims. And FDR did catch and remove the bad operators before he started to add new programs. Bush and Obama are rewarding the criminals, not catching them. This is totally insane unless the criminals have you trapped in a blackmail threat. ¶ 6:42 PM
Obama's debut is quite different from FDR's. FDR took office in the midst of a total meltdown of the banking system and acted boldly to arrest it. In March 1933, the Dow was at 52. It climbed 75 percent in the first 100 days. By December 1, 1933 it was 99. Obama is temporizing with his financial crisis in favor of moving quickly on his big spending plans, and watching the Dow trip steadily downward by the day. It's as if FDR skipped the bank holiday and focused first on passing the CCC.
Back in September (before the election) Polistra wrote:
The brand-R talking point heads continually define FDR as a socialist who tried to nationalize everything and blew up the Constitution. The same brand-R talking point heads also describe Sultan Bush as a "conservative".
How did FDR handle the banking crisis in 1933? He closed all banks to stop the run, sent out inspectors to check solvency, and immediately re-opened the good banks with a federal guarantee behind them. The guarantee turned into FDIC.
Was this constitutional? Yes. The Federal gov't is given power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." Since the banking crisis was destroying the Value of Money, the gov't clearly had the authority to intervene.
How does Sultan Bush handle this banking crisis? He nationalizes the insolvent companies.
Now tell me again, who's the socialist?
Polistra is pleased to see that even New York Metrosexuals are capable of understanding reality, given a little extra time.
A normal and sane ruler -- like FDR -- knows that you need to catch criminals and take them out of circulation before you can start to restore the trust and confidence of the victims. And FDR did catch and remove the bad operators before he started to add new programs. Bush and Obama are rewarding the criminals, not catching them. This is totally insane unless the criminals have you trapped in a blackmail threat. ¶ 6:42 PM
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Mark Steyn and Judy's father
Mark Steyn's column about lo-brow vs hi-brow conservatism has raised hackles. He certainly has a point, and it's similar to Polistra's main theme. But Steyn doesn't hit the whole target.
It's not just within conservatism, and it's not just the forehead altitude of commentary.
The basic problem covers all realms of art, science and politics. Why don't we have hi-brow commentary? Because there is no hi-brow subject matter available to discuss.
I realized this, oddly enough, while listening to a 1946 episode of A Date with Judy. In this episode Judy wants to attend an evening lecture by an intellectual, and she wants her father to take her. Father gets pompous, saying: "It is true, Judy, that I try to keep abreast of the times; literature, art, politics..." Since this is a comedy, we know that Father's pomposity will be duly punished later, and we're not disappointed.
Consider: Keeping abreast of the times in literature, art, music and politics was a hi-brow pursuit, because there were hi-brow developments in literature, art, music and politics.
What do we have now? Sure, we have literature, art, music and politics, but the only parts available for Father to discuss are lo-brow. The formal or serious segments of the arts have destroyed themselves by total devotion to incestuous avant-garde ugliness, advancing the Soviet cause. If Judy's father wanted to learn something about these monstrosities, he couldn't penetrate the nonsensical jargon of the inner priesthood.
Science has split in a different way: plenty of important work is still proceeding, but the public face of science is nothing more than primitive, vicious and anti-logical bigotry against religion and Western civilization. If Judy's father wanted to read about the new developments, he would have to wade through a minefield of abuse and hatred against everything he holds dear.
Most importantly, politics has gone down the same road, though without the help of the academics. There is some rational thought, but it doesn't reach any medium that Judy's father could watch or hear. Dozens of important questions beg to be discussed, but the only thing we hear on TV and radio is mindless repetition of today's talking points.
Asshole General Holder and his minions at CNN endlessly repeat "We need more discussion of race." (By which Holder really means "C'mon you motherfucking ofay punks, make my Leninist day!")
And Rush leads the opposite charge with a wider variety of subjects, such as (1) Zero zip nada taxes for me and my fellow millionaires! (2) Zero zip nada taxes for me and my fellow millionaires! (3) Zero zip nada taxes for me and my fellow millionaires! (4) Zero zip nada taxes for me and my fellow millionaires!
Neither side ever asks whether we should restore American industry, though Obama tosses an occasional symbolic bone in that direction. Neither side ever asks whether school integration was good for black kids. Neither side ever wonders why it's no longer possible for an ordinary man to support a family with one income. Neither side ever proposes limiting lawsuits. Neither side can find the obvious answer to our health-care problem, though it's already available in France. Neither side can find the obvious answer to our energy problem, though it's already available in France.
If we were able to discuss these topics, we'd have more of a middle-brow political culture. But these topics are not allowed. Anyone who tries to discuss them is covered with Hazmat labels and surrounded with crime-scene tape.
¶ 6:51 AM
It's not just within conservatism, and it's not just the forehead altitude of commentary.
The basic problem covers all realms of art, science and politics. Why don't we have hi-brow commentary? Because there is no hi-brow subject matter available to discuss.
I realized this, oddly enough, while listening to a 1946 episode of A Date with Judy. In this episode Judy wants to attend an evening lecture by an intellectual, and she wants her father to take her. Father gets pompous, saying: "It is true, Judy, that I try to keep abreast of the times; literature, art, politics..." Since this is a comedy, we know that Father's pomposity will be duly punished later, and we're not disappointed.
Consider: Keeping abreast of the times in literature, art, music and politics was a hi-brow pursuit, because there were hi-brow developments in literature, art, music and politics.
What do we have now? Sure, we have literature, art, music and politics, but the only parts available for Father to discuss are lo-brow. The formal or serious segments of the arts have destroyed themselves by total devotion to incestuous avant-garde ugliness, advancing the Soviet cause. If Judy's father wanted to learn something about these monstrosities, he couldn't penetrate the nonsensical jargon of the inner priesthood.
Science has split in a different way: plenty of important work is still proceeding, but the public face of science is nothing more than primitive, vicious and anti-logical bigotry against religion and Western civilization. If Judy's father wanted to read about the new developments, he would have to wade through a minefield of abuse and hatred against everything he holds dear.
Most importantly, politics has gone down the same road, though without the help of the academics. There is some rational thought, but it doesn't reach any medium that Judy's father could watch or hear. Dozens of important questions beg to be discussed, but the only thing we hear on TV and radio is mindless repetition of today's talking points.
Asshole General Holder and his minions at CNN endlessly repeat "We need more discussion of race." (By which Holder really means "C'mon you motherfucking ofay punks, make my Leninist day!")
And Rush leads the opposite charge with a wider variety of subjects, such as (1) Zero zip nada taxes for me and my fellow millionaires! (2) Zero zip nada taxes for me and my fellow millionaires! (3) Zero zip nada taxes for me and my fellow millionaires! (4) Zero zip nada taxes for me and my fellow millionaires!
Neither side ever asks whether we should restore American industry, though Obama tosses an occasional symbolic bone in that direction. Neither side ever asks whether school integration was good for black kids. Neither side ever wonders why it's no longer possible for an ordinary man to support a family with one income. Neither side ever proposes limiting lawsuits. Neither side can find the obvious answer to our health-care problem, though it's already available in France. Neither side can find the obvious answer to our energy problem, though it's already available in France.
If we were able to discuss these topics, we'd have more of a middle-brow political culture. But these topics are not allowed. Anyone who tries to discuss them is covered with Hazmat labels and surrounded with crime-scene tape.
¶ 6:51 AM
