"Deep-soul Knowing"
This is a term Alice Sebold attributes to her dead heroine's father in reference to the identity of her killer, George Harvey. I believe this kind of knowing is the root cause of many horrible things, such as the Crusades, gay-bashing, the KKK, cults, and terrorism. I think about half of what is known by humans in the "deep-soul" knowing kind of way is simply not true, and her support of the concept disturbs me.
However, it only disturbs me as much as her portrayal of the dead among us, which most will agree is something that cannot be known. I am more open to that possibility than I am to the possibility that a person who feels "deep-soul knowledge" has a better grasp on reality than one who merely suspects an assertion's truth or is "quite certain" of it.
In fact, I think peace and goodwill are generally furthered by the idea that the dead may be among us, while "deep-soul knowing" generally diminishes them. Will you join me in encouraging the kind of skepticism that would have made Mr. Salmon's efforts with Len Fenerman blossom into justice, instead of requiring the use of just an icicle to give us closure on the case?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Why some Democrats are beginning to follow Ron Paul
Ron Paul has been considered further from the political space between Democrats and Republicans than the Republicans themselves. How is it, then, that some Democrats have started siding with him, rather than with Republicans? One of the reasons is Paul's promotion of the Constitution itself. It is a sound basis for government and Democrats understand that. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have been ignoring it for decdes, but Ron Paul has been promoting it and railing against them the whole time. Finally, people are demanding that our leaders respect this important founding document.
Another reason a Democrat might gravitate toward Ron Paul is that Democrats enjoy a good joint as much as Republicans. They might not inhale, but they still enjoy it. This particular enjoyment suffers from stifling and oppressive government control, and Democrats don't like it. Whether you belong to one of the parties or not, it's pretty easy to recognize that there are some areas of our lives in which government shouldn't interfere.
Welfare and Warfare. Voters in the Democratic Party traditionally care more about the underprivileged than those in the Republican party. This has always been used by rulers to justify taking money away from all citizens, regardless of their party afiiliation to be spent on helping these underprivileged. Democrats, however, have noticed that a great portion of what they give up for this good reason ends up being spent on foreign policy - Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the messing around the US did in the middle east to foment 9/11 in the first place. While Ron Paul argues that the state shouldn't be taking money from its citizens in the first place, he also argues that Defense Department expenditures are tremendously wasteful. He promotes the libertarian argument that citizens should decide how their own money should be spent.
Oddly enough, the Bush tax cuts have helped Democrats realize the benefits of keeping their own money and being responsible for using it. They are able to help the underprivileged on their own. They find their own decisions, even as a group, are better than those of the government which is as likely or more likely to spend it on foreign wars and CIA black operations than on helping poor people.
Corporatism vs Capitalism. As Ron Paul's campaign to Audit the Fed and eventually End the Fed goes on and on, everyone is realizing that this country is under the thumb of big business, and there's something wrong with that. One of the deceits that people are now seeing through is the idea that this trend is a natural result of capitalism. It has come to light that most of the big banks and insurance companies have friends in high places, and the power of government is what produced the bailouts that have kept them alive throughout the financial crisis. As awareness of the taxpayer as support-system for corporations that are too-heavy-to-fail and the pain of carrying them spreads, Democrats feel it too. Capitalism without the big government to support it creates goods and services that allow the underprivileged to prosper, encourages the competition that employs them, and promotes the environment that supports diversity.
Another reason a Democrat might gravitate toward Ron Paul is that Democrats enjoy a good joint as much as Republicans. They might not inhale, but they still enjoy it. This particular enjoyment suffers from stifling and oppressive government control, and Democrats don't like it. Whether you belong to one of the parties or not, it's pretty easy to recognize that there are some areas of our lives in which government shouldn't interfere.
Welfare and Warfare. Voters in the Democratic Party traditionally care more about the underprivileged than those in the Republican party. This has always been used by rulers to justify taking money away from all citizens, regardless of their party afiiliation to be spent on helping these underprivileged. Democrats, however, have noticed that a great portion of what they give up for this good reason ends up being spent on foreign policy - Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the messing around the US did in the middle east to foment 9/11 in the first place. While Ron Paul argues that the state shouldn't be taking money from its citizens in the first place, he also argues that Defense Department expenditures are tremendously wasteful. He promotes the libertarian argument that citizens should decide how their own money should be spent.
Oddly enough, the Bush tax cuts have helped Democrats realize the benefits of keeping their own money and being responsible for using it. They are able to help the underprivileged on their own. They find their own decisions, even as a group, are better than those of the government which is as likely or more likely to spend it on foreign wars and CIA black operations than on helping poor people.
Corporatism vs Capitalism. As Ron Paul's campaign to Audit the Fed and eventually End the Fed goes on and on, everyone is realizing that this country is under the thumb of big business, and there's something wrong with that. One of the deceits that people are now seeing through is the idea that this trend is a natural result of capitalism. It has come to light that most of the big banks and insurance companies have friends in high places, and the power of government is what produced the bailouts that have kept them alive throughout the financial crisis. As awareness of the taxpayer as support-system for corporations that are too-heavy-to-fail and the pain of carrying them spreads, Democrats feel it too. Capitalism without the big government to support it creates goods and services that allow the underprivileged to prosper, encourages the competition that employs them, and promotes the environment that supports diversity.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Fighting for taxpayers
The University of California has engaged me in an effort to lobby California legislators to spend taxpayer money on higher education. At least in my case, their plan backfired. They created a system through which letters could be sent, along with some sample text to use. I edited it for the cause of freedom and independence:
I write to you today as an advocate for the taxpayers of California and the United States and to encourage you to move the UC system toward independence from the state, if that is possible. The University is requesting that $913 million be restored to its budget in order to sustain its commitment to students and families and all the residents of California, but this is money which must be taken directly out of the pockets of taxpayers in one way or another, and that kind of thing has been destroying this country bit by bit.
It is vital that the State reinvest in the taxpayers rather than the UC System which could easily survive independently by leveraging the intelligence of its students.
UC is a powerful engine of economic growth and social advancement and will be essential in the knowledge economy of the future. Any money spent on the University by the state of California should be viewed as a crutch that is allowing the best parts of this engine to atrophy.
I hope you appreciate the magnitude of the State's budget gap and the difficult choices you will face. It's imperative to our long-term prosperity that you look beyond the immediate fiscal crisis and unburden taxpayers not only in CA but, as Arnold's efforts to get federal money start succeeding, across the country so they can develop new industries and spur job creation - two essential elements to our economic recovery. It's true that CA is a net exporter of tax revenue to the federal government, but that money should not be redirected to the state government, it should be sent back to the taxpayers from whom it was taken.
In addition to pushing the University to stand on its inherent strengths, I urge you to engage in serious discussions about exercising California's 10th amendment rights to nullify federal laws in the best interest of its citizens. While I recognize that you and your colleagues in the Legislature will develop the details, I believe it is critical to establish independence from Washington DC and the IRS which are increasingly becoming tools of oppression and even slavery.
I thank you for your time and attention and appreciate your consideration of my views.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Modern Slavery
Do you think that there just aren't any powerful people who would like to have you as a slave? You have to admit that there probably are, right? But they don't have access to you, right? You're just one of millions, so how could they get to you to make you a slave?
Do you think they'd let on that they're using you as a slave, if they are? Or would they hide it? What would be the symptoms of enslavement, and could they be masked so that even if you are a slave, you wouldn't struggle against it? You'd do things you don't want to do because you're afraid of punishment, right? But the agents who inflict the punishment wouldn't be slave masters. They'd be painted to seem... legitimate, some kind of authority that you are taught to respect because they help you and protect you.
If you don't eat, you starve, and this forces you to eat. Breathing is the same way. Is there a slave master who forces you to eat and breathe? In that sense, you are already a slave to biology and physics. Does that make it ok to be a slave to other people? What's the diffference between other people and nature? Does nature have a choice about keeping you alive when you don't eat or you don't breathe? Do we have any reason to believe that struggling against that enslavement would free us from having to eat and breathe? What about other people? If they didn't spend time punishing slaves for failing to comply with the laws of their enslavement, what would they do during that time?
I see a lot of slavery that is unintentional. Many people spend time punishing each other for not yielding to each other's demands. In most cases, the punisher will recognize the ugliness of his or her behavior, and work to improve it, but exploiting those creatures around you who will yield to your threats seems to be instinctual.
I see intentional and deceptive slavery too. People in positions of power aren't all vapid thugs. Many of them understand that spending time punishing people for not complying with their demands is a black thing to do, but they do it anyway because they feel their ugliness can be hidden well enough to maintain their happiness. We all do that a little bit - hide our ugly choices so that people won't hate us. Some of us try to stop making these choices, and we find the comfort of being innocent. Even when we find ourselves punishing others for failing to comply, we retain the essence of innocence by recognizing the ugliness and trying to do better. Others don't bother. Which side are you on?
When the analysis of their own lives suggests that the stinking rot in their soul is not degrading their lives as much as freeing others from enslavement would, many people just leave it be. Those in positions of power obviously have an easier time with this, especially when that bad smell is largely transferred to agents who are made to feel it is their duty to inflict punishments on those who don't comply. This is one of the ways in which power corrupts. Do you smell that smell yet?
Abolishing slavery is going to take more than some proclamation by a government. The slave mentality ought to be recognized by the majority of us. Its disgusting scent ought to be named, and each of us ought to demand freedom. I wrote this essay in an attempt to help clear the air a bit, to give those people in power a bit more evidence that some of us know where the stench emanates from. Perhaps they will start cleaning up their act.
Do you think they'd let on that they're using you as a slave, if they are? Or would they hide it? What would be the symptoms of enslavement, and could they be masked so that even if you are a slave, you wouldn't struggle against it? You'd do things you don't want to do because you're afraid of punishment, right? But the agents who inflict the punishment wouldn't be slave masters. They'd be painted to seem... legitimate, some kind of authority that you are taught to respect because they help you and protect you.
If you don't eat, you starve, and this forces you to eat. Breathing is the same way. Is there a slave master who forces you to eat and breathe? In that sense, you are already a slave to biology and physics. Does that make it ok to be a slave to other people? What's the diffference between other people and nature? Does nature have a choice about keeping you alive when you don't eat or you don't breathe? Do we have any reason to believe that struggling against that enslavement would free us from having to eat and breathe? What about other people? If they didn't spend time punishing slaves for failing to comply with the laws of their enslavement, what would they do during that time?
I see a lot of slavery that is unintentional. Many people spend time punishing each other for not yielding to each other's demands. In most cases, the punisher will recognize the ugliness of his or her behavior, and work to improve it, but exploiting those creatures around you who will yield to your threats seems to be instinctual.
I see intentional and deceptive slavery too. People in positions of power aren't all vapid thugs. Many of them understand that spending time punishing people for not complying with their demands is a black thing to do, but they do it anyway because they feel their ugliness can be hidden well enough to maintain their happiness. We all do that a little bit - hide our ugly choices so that people won't hate us. Some of us try to stop making these choices, and we find the comfort of being innocent. Even when we find ourselves punishing others for failing to comply, we retain the essence of innocence by recognizing the ugliness and trying to do better. Others don't bother. Which side are you on?
When the analysis of their own lives suggests that the stinking rot in their soul is not degrading their lives as much as freeing others from enslavement would, many people just leave it be. Those in positions of power obviously have an easier time with this, especially when that bad smell is largely transferred to agents who are made to feel it is their duty to inflict punishments on those who don't comply. This is one of the ways in which power corrupts. Do you smell that smell yet?
Abolishing slavery is going to take more than some proclamation by a government. The slave mentality ought to be recognized by the majority of us. Its disgusting scent ought to be named, and each of us ought to demand freedom. I wrote this essay in an attempt to help clear the air a bit, to give those people in power a bit more evidence that some of us know where the stench emanates from. Perhaps they will start cleaning up their act.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Hey TSA, let some planes explode.!
I know I'm heartless, but I think the fear of bankruptcy would create a much richer and more robust safety solution than the US government is capable of creating with tax revenue. The idea is to allow airlines to decline passengers for any reason they want (can they do that now? I don't know.)
Once this is in place, each airline that suffers a terrorist attack would bear a significant burden to stay in business. People would blame the company for letting the nuts on the plane, rather than the nuts, who can't really be blamed because, well, they're nuts. More importantly, people wouldn't blame whole countries or invent WMDs to justify immoral and wasteful wars against them.
We are suffering from a failure to distinguish. Some airlines operate in a way that makes it slightly more difficult for the nuts to hurt us. We should know which airlines they are, and, depending on how important that kind of safety is to us, their market share will adjust accordingly. The free market is the best mechanism to calculate the portion of air-travel expense that should go toward the thwarting of terrorist attacks (as well as every other calculation of what proportion of expense should go toward what desirable outcome).
Once this is in place, each airline that suffers a terrorist attack would bear a significant burden to stay in business. People would blame the company for letting the nuts on the plane, rather than the nuts, who can't really be blamed because, well, they're nuts. More importantly, people wouldn't blame whole countries or invent WMDs to justify immoral and wasteful wars against them.
We are suffering from a failure to distinguish. Some airlines operate in a way that makes it slightly more difficult for the nuts to hurt us. We should know which airlines they are, and, depending on how important that kind of safety is to us, their market share will adjust accordingly. The free market is the best mechanism to calculate the portion of air-travel expense that should go toward the thwarting of terrorist attacks (as well as every other calculation of what proportion of expense should go toward what desirable outcome).
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The Killing Crutch
Please critique this and I will discard or rewrite as appropriate.
Dave.
This morning I heard that Michelle Obama had visited a farmer's market near the White House. I thought it was wonderful. However, having read a little Rothbard, I knew there was something wrong with this picture. How could the administration be encouraging local growers and such when the big corporate interests are so threatened by them, and when local growers create such independence and strength in the citizenry? It turns out they have a rather brilliant (albeit perverted) plan.
Google "atrophy crutch" (without quotes). Read the one at Everything2: http://everything2.com/title/crutch
Atrophy is the general goal of government and explains a lot of the seemingly unnecessary "help" it provides to people, such as what Michelle said: "I want to reinforce the fact that this market and other farmers' markets around the city participate in the WIC program, the SNAP program, the Double Dollar program, and the Seniors benefits program. And each SNAP and WIC dollar equals two dollars at a farmers' market to purchase fresh produce."
What atrophies here is the farmer's markets' motivation and ability to advertise and educate people who are not on welfare. She's basically saying, look, if you're poor, be a customer of these local food growers and we'll get all the taxpayers to help pay your way.
But why would the government have atrophy as a goal? Don't worry it isn't obvious until you think about it. The weaker you are, the more likely you are to choose the brute force of a government over the hard work of finding and building trading relationships with other citizens to support yourself. Grow weak and stupid, and see how hard it is to "just say no" when his lordship the president offers to make your neighbor give you dinner. We wouldn't sink if they weren't trying to sink us, but they know that we wouldn't need them either. This is the problem England faced in the late 1700s. They tried using their brute force to keep us enslaved, but that didn't work out too well. So now governments force support on us wherever we have strength in order to diminish it, and Farmer's Markets is an excellent example.
However, there's a whole other side to the reason government intentionally creates atrophy. We all know that DC is a whorehouse in which corporations are the tricks, the politicians are the whores, and the taxpayers are their families – the ones who really get screwed. Atrophying the specific abilities citizens have that enable them to avoid using the services of a corporation is a natural goal of the corporation. Since the corporate-government partnership is so seedy and well supported ($2.8B lobbying industry: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1461231811.html), we should expect to see government stealthily atrophying whatever they can, and generally that means competition from the little guy.
In any case, I learned that this goes a little deeper. The NPR story that I heard reports that "Tom Vilsack showed up at that farmer's market, and announced $4.5 million in grants to promote farmers markets nationwide." (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112983926). So there's another $4.5M crutch that the government will be using to destroy farmer's markets while pretending to help. If they really wanted to help, domestic military schools and camps like Pendleton and Anapolis would be buying their produce from farmer's markets. Look into that and note the great void.
You may be wondering if I see any role for the money collected through taxation - because if they use it to help, I call it a crutch, and if they use it to harm, I lambast them for harming us. True enough: I see no role whatsoever for money collected through taxation. Once money is taken by force, the only good use of it is to be returned to those who earned it. The government would have to provide services that people - the people who pay the "tax" - actually wanted. If they did this, it wouldn't be a tax - it would be a price, just like what private enterprise charges its (hard earned) customers.
This is one small example of the disease that plagues this country. Please join me in spreading the awareness that government has grown into a deceitful parasite gorging itself with taxes and destroying our independence. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It soothes us with calming words and superficial kindness as it drains our lifeblood. But it will be diminished, and sooner if you help.
Dave.
This morning I heard that Michelle Obama had visited a farmer's market near the White House. I thought it was wonderful. However, having read a little Rothbard, I knew there was something wrong with this picture. How could the administration be encouraging local growers and such when the big corporate interests are so threatened by them, and when local growers create such independence and strength in the citizenry? It turns out they have a rather brilliant (albeit perverted) plan.
Google "atrophy crutch" (without quotes). Read the one at Everything2: http://everything2.com/title/crutch
Atrophy is the general goal of government and explains a lot of the seemingly unnecessary "help" it provides to people, such as what Michelle said: "I want to reinforce the fact that this market and other farmers' markets around the city participate in the WIC program, the SNAP program, the Double Dollar program, and the Seniors benefits program. And each SNAP and WIC dollar equals two dollars at a farmers' market to purchase fresh produce."
What atrophies here is the farmer's markets' motivation and ability to advertise and educate people who are not on welfare. She's basically saying, look, if you're poor, be a customer of these local food growers and we'll get all the taxpayers to help pay your way.
But why would the government have atrophy as a goal? Don't worry it isn't obvious until you think about it. The weaker you are, the more likely you are to choose the brute force of a government over the hard work of finding and building trading relationships with other citizens to support yourself. Grow weak and stupid, and see how hard it is to "just say no" when his lordship the president offers to make your neighbor give you dinner. We wouldn't sink if they weren't trying to sink us, but they know that we wouldn't need them either. This is the problem England faced in the late 1700s. They tried using their brute force to keep us enslaved, but that didn't work out too well. So now governments force support on us wherever we have strength in order to diminish it, and Farmer's Markets is an excellent example.
However, there's a whole other side to the reason government intentionally creates atrophy. We all know that DC is a whorehouse in which corporations are the tricks, the politicians are the whores, and the taxpayers are their families – the ones who really get screwed. Atrophying the specific abilities citizens have that enable them to avoid using the services of a corporation is a natural goal of the corporation. Since the corporate-government partnership is so seedy and well supported ($2.8B lobbying industry: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1461231811.html), we should expect to see government stealthily atrophying whatever they can, and generally that means competition from the little guy.
In any case, I learned that this goes a little deeper. The NPR story that I heard reports that "Tom Vilsack showed up at that farmer's market, and announced $4.5 million in grants to promote farmers markets nationwide." (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112983926). So there's another $4.5M crutch that the government will be using to destroy farmer's markets while pretending to help. If they really wanted to help, domestic military schools and camps like Pendleton and Anapolis would be buying their produce from farmer's markets. Look into that and note the great void.
You may be wondering if I see any role for the money collected through taxation - because if they use it to help, I call it a crutch, and if they use it to harm, I lambast them for harming us. True enough: I see no role whatsoever for money collected through taxation. Once money is taken by force, the only good use of it is to be returned to those who earned it. The government would have to provide services that people - the people who pay the "tax" - actually wanted. If they did this, it wouldn't be a tax - it would be a price, just like what private enterprise charges its (hard earned) customers.
This is one small example of the disease that plagues this country. Please join me in spreading the awareness that government has grown into a deceitful parasite gorging itself with taxes and destroying our independence. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It soothes us with calming words and superficial kindness as it drains our lifeblood. But it will be diminished, and sooner if you help.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Sword of Damocles
The versions of the story from modern times suggest that an imminent danger comes with having wealth. I have no idea why the story would be told that way. It seems more an injuction against the method one uses to gain the wealth rather than the actual having of it. The wealthy person, in this case was, after all, a cruel and unjust king who was known as a tyrant.
James Baldwin wrote the version I just read, and in it, he writes that Damocles says "I now see that I was mistaken, and that the rich and powerful are not so happy as they seem." Would he have said to King Dionysius, "King Dionysius, whatever threatens you does not threaten me. This is why you have hung that sword there - because my use of your riches does not put me in danger of your enemies. I did not ask for the rage and anger that you have brought upon yourself by being cruel and unjust, but only to see how the rich and powerful live. Surely there are good kings, kind and just, who also have such power and riches. You could show me that, but you chose to add the sword that your cruelty has created."
No, of course he wouldn't have said that. Instead, he plays the king's game, pretending that it is his power and riches, rather than the injustice and cruelty he used to get them, that presents imminent danger. But the story itself does this too, for it says (in Baldwin's words) "And so long as he lived, he never again wanted to be rich, or to change places, even for a moment, with the king."
Did this come through the story, or was it added by Mr. Baldwin? Does it matter? Does this story create a fear of being wealthy in you? Can we, today, tell our politicians off because they use deceit and empty promises to gain power and then abuse it to gain more? Or will the media pay more attention to the lack of decorum to which our passion drives us (Wilson), than to the unjust cruelty out of which that passion is born? Or will they invoke the Patriot Act and silence us with threats, or use previously illegal wiretapping to spy on us and stealthily degrade our livelihood in order to prevent us from making these accusations?
The meaning of the sword has been hijacked. I write to right this wrong. It is not wealth that raises the sword to your necks, my friends, but cruelty, injustice, and deceit.
James Baldwin wrote the version I just read, and in it, he writes that Damocles says "I now see that I was mistaken, and that the rich and powerful are not so happy as they seem." Would he have said to King Dionysius, "King Dionysius, whatever threatens you does not threaten me. This is why you have hung that sword there - because my use of your riches does not put me in danger of your enemies. I did not ask for the rage and anger that you have brought upon yourself by being cruel and unjust, but only to see how the rich and powerful live. Surely there are good kings, kind and just, who also have such power and riches. You could show me that, but you chose to add the sword that your cruelty has created."
No, of course he wouldn't have said that. Instead, he plays the king's game, pretending that it is his power and riches, rather than the injustice and cruelty he used to get them, that presents imminent danger. But the story itself does this too, for it says (in Baldwin's words) "And so long as he lived, he never again wanted to be rich, or to change places, even for a moment, with the king."
Did this come through the story, or was it added by Mr. Baldwin? Does it matter? Does this story create a fear of being wealthy in you? Can we, today, tell our politicians off because they use deceit and empty promises to gain power and then abuse it to gain more? Or will the media pay more attention to the lack of decorum to which our passion drives us (Wilson), than to the unjust cruelty out of which that passion is born? Or will they invoke the Patriot Act and silence us with threats, or use previously illegal wiretapping to spy on us and stealthily degrade our livelihood in order to prevent us from making these accusations?
The meaning of the sword has been hijacked. I write to right this wrong. It is not wealth that raises the sword to your necks, my friends, but cruelty, injustice, and deceit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)