It isn't every night you have a dream about jumping into a black hole, meet a preadolescent gate keeper named Michael living in a studio apartment, jump into an icy blue sea, and end up getting reduced to component particles (possibly smaller than quarks). Woosh! It was the most vivid, intense dream I have had in recent memory, possibly ever. It was def. a sci-fi masterpiece with amazing effects, told in the 2nd(!) person, and with enough weirdness to inspire days worth of symbol grasping... Can't say it was enjoyable, I awoke with a start after I had been dematerialized. On the other hand, I was never afraid, just had a ton of adrenaline coursing through me... Here's to a good night's sleep tonight...
Nov 29, 2008
Nov 27, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving!
The title pretty much says it all. If things go well, I'l have two this year! That will partially make up for me missing the last two over in Yemen... I hope I'll be able to button up my pants by the end of the weekend!
So you want to shoot a video... Information across the generations
Recently, I had gotten some inquires from a local museum wondering if I wanted to do a video project. When I asked what it was, I kept getting told that it was an oral history project. That sounds good, but it was a little vague. Still, the idea of shooting a documentary, however short, was appealing. I was finally directed to another museum's site to see what had made everyone so excited about getting this underway.
I quickly decided that this is yet another generational issue involving technology and information. The clips are just that, clips of people talking. Apparently, they are shown, "multi-media" style at the museum using a touch screen interface. This really impressed the people that saw this display. Here's what I saw... I saw some rather amateurish looking clips put into categories depending on what they were talking about. There was no narrative, there was no coherence, and I don't think there was much point.
When I got to sit down with one of the board members and tried to figure out what it was they wanted to do, I was amazed. They wanted to hire me (or this other guy) to run the camera and edit the footage. They also may have needed me to do the "multi-media" installation at the museum. Ummm, what decade are we living in?
I had to break it to them that it doesn't take much of a genius to record people talking, or even to string clips together. Just as digital photography has made acceptable looking images easy to get, digital video cameras have made it really easy to get acceptable looking video without knowing much.
Of course, if I shot the stuff for them, it would look much better. That's still the difference between a hack and someone that cares. Lighting and composition will always separate the men from the boys. Of course she didn't really understand what it was you need to pay for when it comes to video production like this. Like I said, shooting it is a piece of cake, editing is always work, but it wouldn't be too bad for a project like this. What you end up paying for is the ability to organize images and sound in order to tell a story, or in this case, history.
This had never crossed anyone's mind as far as I can tell. They were ready to pay me money to simply record stuff. They were then going to take those clips and put them on a screen via a touch screen interface. Like I said before, I think there is a generational gap at work here. What role do documents and information in general play in learning history? And where does that information belong?
To many people, especially older ones, the act of getting information transferred into bytes is an amazing and unknowable process. The fact that it happens at all is seen as a miracle. In their world, you need to have lots of arcane technical knowledge to do that, that's why you have to pay people for that. To people that are comfortable with these things (like everyone under the age of 25 and some of us older folks), it is as normal as putting on our shoes. For us, getting the footage or image is understood. What we want to know is what are you going to do with that info?
If teaching history is the main reason for recording this stuff at all, why are you going to stick it in a museum? A museum in Mathews county of all places... Once again, for people in the younger generations, information does not belong in a building where it is subject to opening and closing hours. It is not meant to have limited access. If you want information to be useful, put it on the web so that anyone can have access to it. At one time, museums were very good for that. Nowadays, they are much better suited for showing objects and hosting educational activities.
So I am going to speak to the board in December. I'm hoping to be able to explain the difference between recording data and using data to create something useful. I'm also hoping to convince them that any of them can run a video camera. No, it won't look as good, but it will be a hell of a lot cheaper. Sometimes quantity is more important than quality... If they do want that data to be made into something useful, the last thing they want to do is limit access to it. I will try to introduce them to the internet...
That's not really fair, they do know what the internet is, but they seem to have a very limited view of what it is. Older people tend to see the internet as something akin to TV. You tune it in and see what's on. It doesn't occur to them that they should contribute. I do wish that people would stop being afraid of technology. I'll try to do my part in a couple of weeks and hopefully if they ever want to do an actual documentary, they'll call me...
I quickly decided that this is yet another generational issue involving technology and information. The clips are just that, clips of people talking. Apparently, they are shown, "multi-media" style at the museum using a touch screen interface. This really impressed the people that saw this display. Here's what I saw... I saw some rather amateurish looking clips put into categories depending on what they were talking about. There was no narrative, there was no coherence, and I don't think there was much point.
When I got to sit down with one of the board members and tried to figure out what it was they wanted to do, I was amazed. They wanted to hire me (or this other guy) to run the camera and edit the footage. They also may have needed me to do the "multi-media" installation at the museum. Ummm, what decade are we living in?
I had to break it to them that it doesn't take much of a genius to record people talking, or even to string clips together. Just as digital photography has made acceptable looking images easy to get, digital video cameras have made it really easy to get acceptable looking video without knowing much.
Of course, if I shot the stuff for them, it would look much better. That's still the difference between a hack and someone that cares. Lighting and composition will always separate the men from the boys. Of course she didn't really understand what it was you need to pay for when it comes to video production like this. Like I said, shooting it is a piece of cake, editing is always work, but it wouldn't be too bad for a project like this. What you end up paying for is the ability to organize images and sound in order to tell a story, or in this case, history.
This had never crossed anyone's mind as far as I can tell. They were ready to pay me money to simply record stuff. They were then going to take those clips and put them on a screen via a touch screen interface. Like I said before, I think there is a generational gap at work here. What role do documents and information in general play in learning history? And where does that information belong?
To many people, especially older ones, the act of getting information transferred into bytes is an amazing and unknowable process. The fact that it happens at all is seen as a miracle. In their world, you need to have lots of arcane technical knowledge to do that, that's why you have to pay people for that. To people that are comfortable with these things (like everyone under the age of 25 and some of us older folks), it is as normal as putting on our shoes. For us, getting the footage or image is understood. What we want to know is what are you going to do with that info?
If teaching history is the main reason for recording this stuff at all, why are you going to stick it in a museum? A museum in Mathews county of all places... Once again, for people in the younger generations, information does not belong in a building where it is subject to opening and closing hours. It is not meant to have limited access. If you want information to be useful, put it on the web so that anyone can have access to it. At one time, museums were very good for that. Nowadays, they are much better suited for showing objects and hosting educational activities.
So I am going to speak to the board in December. I'm hoping to be able to explain the difference between recording data and using data to create something useful. I'm also hoping to convince them that any of them can run a video camera. No, it won't look as good, but it will be a hell of a lot cheaper. Sometimes quantity is more important than quality... If they do want that data to be made into something useful, the last thing they want to do is limit access to it. I will try to introduce them to the internet...
That's not really fair, they do know what the internet is, but they seem to have a very limited view of what it is. Older people tend to see the internet as something akin to TV. You tune it in and see what's on. It doesn't occur to them that they should contribute. I do wish that people would stop being afraid of technology. I'll try to do my part in a couple of weeks and hopefully if they ever want to do an actual documentary, they'll call me...
Nov 26, 2008
Wow, where've you been Google?
I had noticed my daily hit rate on my site had been going down recently. The other day, a Google bot crawled my website and suddenly I'm getting all sorts of hits. Not only are some of my old popular pages (demand curves, profit is important, in defense of black sabbath, etc.) getting hit again, but Im getting hits on pages that never got them before. I have no idea why my numbers dropped off so much, but I'm amazed that the Google bot has done as much as it has. Glad it stopped by!
One other thing that is interesting, about 30% of visits to my site last longer than 5 minutes. That may not sound like a big deal, but it means that people are reading stuff. Here's an amazing statistic, as of tonight, 10% of the last 200 visits to my site have lasted longer than an hour! That makes a guy feel good!
One other thing that is interesting, about 30% of visits to my site last longer than 5 minutes. That may not sound like a big deal, but it means that people are reading stuff. Here's an amazing statistic, as of tonight, 10% of the last 200 visits to my site have lasted longer than an hour! That makes a guy feel good!
NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
Yesterday, Paulson said, "...the most important thing we can do to mitigate the housing correction and reduce the number of foreclosures is to increase access to lower cost mortgage lending."
GAH! Ok, why does he think that lower cost mortgages will be helpful? They were, to a large extent, what brought us to this current mess. I have already talked a bit about the "correction" (see my last post), but let's think about what a mortgage rate is.
A mortgage rate is the rate of interest someone will charge you so you can borrow money to buy a house. What that rate is is determined by what it costs them to get that money, your likely ability to pay that loan, and the availability of higher rates of return on other lending options. None of those things are created out of thin air, they're all important The company with the money wants to loan money, that's how they make money, but they need to charge the right amount in order for it to work. In addition, they have to make sure they don't lose money, it's can be a tricky thing.
So along comes the federal government and decides to lower interest rates. Hmm, what can they do? Well, they make it less expensive to get money to lend. That makes the bank more willing to lend to people that have shaky credit, and it makes it more profitable than lending money for other purposes. In addition, the government guarantees risker mortgages through Freddie Mac and Fannie May. The end result? More houses are sold than would be otherwise, and through our friend "Moral Hazard," more houses are sold to people that can't really afford them. That drives the cost of houses higher than it should be (supply and demand being what they are) and also causes a large amount of resources to be spent on the building of houses that shouldn't have (labor in particular). Poof! Instant bubble... Because the feds made this so profitable, various kinds of mortgage derivatives were formed which were then heavily invested in by banks. In short, it's a huge distortion, it's something that wouldn't have happened if things were left to their own devices.
But they weren't, and now we have what we have. The good news is that the mortgage market is trying to correct itself, the bad news is that Paulson (and a lot of others on capital hill) want to get back to the same level of house buying and construction that started this whole mess. Someone, somewhere has to start thinking, "Well, maybe we should let the market get back to where it would have been if we hadn't screwed around so much.." I'm not holding my breath. This is how depressions last, by trying to force markets to go uphill...
GAH! Ok, why does he think that lower cost mortgages will be helpful? They were, to a large extent, what brought us to this current mess. I have already talked a bit about the "correction" (see my last post), but let's think about what a mortgage rate is.
A mortgage rate is the rate of interest someone will charge you so you can borrow money to buy a house. What that rate is is determined by what it costs them to get that money, your likely ability to pay that loan, and the availability of higher rates of return on other lending options. None of those things are created out of thin air, they're all important The company with the money wants to loan money, that's how they make money, but they need to charge the right amount in order for it to work. In addition, they have to make sure they don't lose money, it's can be a tricky thing.
So along comes the federal government and decides to lower interest rates. Hmm, what can they do? Well, they make it less expensive to get money to lend. That makes the bank more willing to lend to people that have shaky credit, and it makes it more profitable than lending money for other purposes. In addition, the government guarantees risker mortgages through Freddie Mac and Fannie May. The end result? More houses are sold than would be otherwise, and through our friend "Moral Hazard," more houses are sold to people that can't really afford them. That drives the cost of houses higher than it should be (supply and demand being what they are) and also causes a large amount of resources to be spent on the building of houses that shouldn't have (labor in particular). Poof! Instant bubble... Because the feds made this so profitable, various kinds of mortgage derivatives were formed which were then heavily invested in by banks. In short, it's a huge distortion, it's something that wouldn't have happened if things were left to their own devices.
But they weren't, and now we have what we have. The good news is that the mortgage market is trying to correct itself, the bad news is that Paulson (and a lot of others on capital hill) want to get back to the same level of house buying and construction that started this whole mess. Someone, somewhere has to start thinking, "Well, maybe we should let the market get back to where it would have been if we hadn't screwed around so much.." I'm not holding my breath. This is how depressions last, by trying to force markets to go uphill...
When is it going to end?
So the Fed is jumping in with hundreds of billions of dollars to "help" the financial crisis. At what point do we say enough? I see two big problems with these ongoing debt raising shenanigans. First, there is the issue of how the economy is going to react. The whole point of this is that many people do not like the way the economy (of the world) is reacting to the current mess. Paulson actually commented on "... mitigating the correction.." The key word here is correction. The market is trying to get back to a stable point, and that's going to mean less spending and less credit than we had before. It is quite possible that the market will over correct, after all, there isn't a single thing that does this correcting, it's millions of transactions trying to figure out what to do with money. I've said it before, but market forces are a lot like water flowing downhill. You can try to divert it, or dam it, but that water will eventually get downhill. If you don't like what the water is going to hit and divert it, you can be sure it will hit something else, and maybe get around to hitting the original thing anyway. Damming can work for a while, but when it overflows or breaks the dam, watch out! Both the Treasury's and the Fed's actions are very blunt attempts to "correct" a very complicated correction. Collateral damage, here we come!
Another big problem is how these actions are continuing and deepening the fall in consumer confidence. Think about it, if people hear the the financial system is collapsing and we need to pull out all of the stops to rescue it every day, do you think they will want to go spend money? Ultimately, people spending money is what makes things happen, but with so much uncertainty, the spending continues to dry up. "But what's the alternative Isaac? There are big problems.." Yes, there are problems, but I blame people in DC for fanning the flames and making everyone shoulder the load through taxpayer money. I would have preferred that the institutions that screwed up be allowed to fail. That way, the more conservative ones would have been in a position to profit, and that's the way it should be. Now, we are in a weird situation where the companies that took risks and got burned are being rewarded. With this sort of bailout, what incentive do you have for being conservative with money?
You can think of it as pulling the bandage off quickly. There would be pain, but things would be primed to correct much more quickly and more accurately than this government led fiasco. Yes, it's a fiasco, the careless and stupid companies that caused this whole mess are being kept alive and at everyone's expense...
Another big problem is how these actions are continuing and deepening the fall in consumer confidence. Think about it, if people hear the the financial system is collapsing and we need to pull out all of the stops to rescue it every day, do you think they will want to go spend money? Ultimately, people spending money is what makes things happen, but with so much uncertainty, the spending continues to dry up. "But what's the alternative Isaac? There are big problems.." Yes, there are problems, but I blame people in DC for fanning the flames and making everyone shoulder the load through taxpayer money. I would have preferred that the institutions that screwed up be allowed to fail. That way, the more conservative ones would have been in a position to profit, and that's the way it should be. Now, we are in a weird situation where the companies that took risks and got burned are being rewarded. With this sort of bailout, what incentive do you have for being conservative with money?
You can think of it as pulling the bandage off quickly. There would be pain, but things would be primed to correct much more quickly and more accurately than this government led fiasco. Yes, it's a fiasco, the careless and stupid companies that caused this whole mess are being kept alive and at everyone's expense...
Nov 25, 2008
Pomegranates
I learned to love pomegranates when I was over in Yemen. I bought a few, but they were kind of a pain to eat. I ate them over the sink by cutting them in half and then just spreading the seeds out and gobbling them down. The problem was that method was messy and they stain like crazy. I ended up getting the fresh juice at the juice stands and loving it. I also combined it with fresh orange juice for an especially wonderful beverage...
When I went to someone's house to eat, they had pomegranates out of the fruit and we ate them with spoon. Much more civilized, and a hell of a lot easier...
So how do you eat pomegranates? Well, you could try the sink method above, but I don't recommend it unless you're wearing dark clothes... Here's a good way to do it. Quarter them in a sink. There's a lot of juice, and it stains, so the sink is your friend... Then, you can spread open the quarters underwater and simply brush the fruit off of the pith with your fingers. The fruit sinks to the bottom of the bowl and the peel and pith floats! After you have done that, you can drain the water and munch away! You can also add them to salads, ice cream, or even put them in the blender for a great juice... I eat the seeds. They're good fiber and I honestly don't taste them really, they have a very weak nut/seed taste that is totally overwhelmed by the juice.
The fruit inside should be anywhere from a pink to a deep red and be sweet. There is a significant amount of tannin in there, so sometimes you may not be up to eating an entire pomegranate. I keep my fruit in an old cool whip container. I got about 10 oz. from two fruits! Eat them while they're here! Enjoy!
When I went to someone's house to eat, they had pomegranates out of the fruit and we ate them with spoon. Much more civilized, and a hell of a lot easier...
So how do you eat pomegranates? Well, you could try the sink method above, but I don't recommend it unless you're wearing dark clothes... Here's a good way to do it. Quarter them in a sink. There's a lot of juice, and it stains, so the sink is your friend... Then, you can spread open the quarters underwater and simply brush the fruit off of the pith with your fingers. The fruit sinks to the bottom of the bowl and the peel and pith floats! After you have done that, you can drain the water and munch away! You can also add them to salads, ice cream, or even put them in the blender for a great juice... I eat the seeds. They're good fiber and I honestly don't taste them really, they have a very weak nut/seed taste that is totally overwhelmed by the juice.
The fruit inside should be anywhere from a pink to a deep red and be sweet. There is a significant amount of tannin in there, so sometimes you may not be up to eating an entire pomegranate. I keep my fruit in an old cool whip container. I got about 10 oz. from two fruits! Eat them while they're here! Enjoy!
Nov 21, 2008
I've passed a test
One of the motivators of me going to Yemen was the prospect of getting out of the job I had. I was an assistant manager in a photo equipment store. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I was one of their better employees. I felt like I was stuck, the best I could hope for was to manage a store. It would be an OK living, but I don't think I could ever be happy doing that.
The trouble with the job is that I always knew I could go back. I didn't burn any bridges... On the one hand, it's nice to have a safety net, but on the other I have to be careful not to do the easy thing and regress back to something I don't want to do.
Sure enough, since the job market is a bit soft (ahem) right now, I inquired at my old job. I was hoping to create a position that would be a little more rewarding. Sure enough, they offered me a job. Not only that, they offered me a promotion. I haven't been there in two years and they offered me a store of my own... It was flattering, but it wasn't what I was looking for. I said no.
That hurt a bit, it always hurts to turn down money, but I'm trying to think long term. I think it's working out for me even now. No, I don't have a job, but by eliminating that, I've become much more open to other possibilities. I figure that's half the battle if you want to change careers.
I have an application in with Apple. I have every belief that I will be hired once they lift their hiring freeze. I have the experience and skills they're looking for. Plus, I have a solid recommendation on the inside... As it turns out, if I did take my old job, I wouldn't be able to work for Apple. My old employer is an authorized Apple dealer (they sell iPods) and Apple won't poach employees from authorized dealers.
While I've been waiting for that, I've been scanning some negatives for a woman my dad knows. That in itself isn't a big deal, but it may turn into something else. She has recommended me to help the museum she (and my father) are very active in. They want to do a history project for the museum. I may end up getting back into film making with this. Nothing has been settled yet, but if this comes to anything, I'll be shooting video, recording the audio, possibly lighting, and the editor of the project. We'll see what happens...
And the oddest possibility is a job in Yemen. Yes, I found a job opening back in Yemen. It's with a UN affiliated group that does work with children. I still think that the political situation in Yemen is a bit unstable, but I think I'd go back if I think I could actually help in some form. This group has very focused goals and I think they are a good example of what an aid organization is capable of doing. It's not the kind of thing that you'll get rich doing, but it pays well for a job in Yemen. More importantly, it would be incredible experience in a totally different career field. Honestly, getting this job is a bit of a long shot, but I'm going to apply and see what happens.
So even though I don't have a job right now, and even though Christmas is coming (sorry guys, the gifts from me are going to be pretty lame), I'm optimistic about my job prospects. Don't worry, I'll let everyone know how all this turns out...
The trouble with the job is that I always knew I could go back. I didn't burn any bridges... On the one hand, it's nice to have a safety net, but on the other I have to be careful not to do the easy thing and regress back to something I don't want to do.
Sure enough, since the job market is a bit soft (ahem) right now, I inquired at my old job. I was hoping to create a position that would be a little more rewarding. Sure enough, they offered me a job. Not only that, they offered me a promotion. I haven't been there in two years and they offered me a store of my own... It was flattering, but it wasn't what I was looking for. I said no.
That hurt a bit, it always hurts to turn down money, but I'm trying to think long term. I think it's working out for me even now. No, I don't have a job, but by eliminating that, I've become much more open to other possibilities. I figure that's half the battle if you want to change careers.
I have an application in with Apple. I have every belief that I will be hired once they lift their hiring freeze. I have the experience and skills they're looking for. Plus, I have a solid recommendation on the inside... As it turns out, if I did take my old job, I wouldn't be able to work for Apple. My old employer is an authorized Apple dealer (they sell iPods) and Apple won't poach employees from authorized dealers.
While I've been waiting for that, I've been scanning some negatives for a woman my dad knows. That in itself isn't a big deal, but it may turn into something else. She has recommended me to help the museum she (and my father) are very active in. They want to do a history project for the museum. I may end up getting back into film making with this. Nothing has been settled yet, but if this comes to anything, I'll be shooting video, recording the audio, possibly lighting, and the editor of the project. We'll see what happens...
And the oddest possibility is a job in Yemen. Yes, I found a job opening back in Yemen. It's with a UN affiliated group that does work with children. I still think that the political situation in Yemen is a bit unstable, but I think I'd go back if I think I could actually help in some form. This group has very focused goals and I think they are a good example of what an aid organization is capable of doing. It's not the kind of thing that you'll get rich doing, but it pays well for a job in Yemen. More importantly, it would be incredible experience in a totally different career field. Honestly, getting this job is a bit of a long shot, but I'm going to apply and see what happens.
So even though I don't have a job right now, and even though Christmas is coming (sorry guys, the gifts from me are going to be pretty lame), I'm optimistic about my job prospects. Don't worry, I'll let everyone know how all this turns out...
Fear and fundementalism
I've been going to a book club the past 3 weeks or so. It's held at an Episcopal church and not surprisingly, the books revolve around religion. Right now, we're doing a book about the Gospel of Mary (Magdalan). The stuff about the book is interesting but often times the tangents are more interesting.
I had an interesting discussion after the meeting the other night and one of the ladies brought up something that rang true to me. I can't remember the exact way this was put (Mary, please correct me if I've butchered this) but the general idea is that all fundamentalism seems to be driven by fear.
The fear could be of any number of things. They could be afraid of being wrong, of other people thinking they're wrong, of the influence of people outside the group, or maybe even schisms inside the group. The one thing they never seem to be afraid of is the one thing they should be. They don't seem to be afraid of God. They don't have any problem with judging and carrying out what they think of as God's will. They feel the need to point out the errors of others if not carry out justice in the here and now. They seem to also fear anyone "getting away" with something. It's as if they don't trust God. They want justice NOW! Why wait? What if the offending party doesn't end up in hell?
The lack of trust can also manifest itself in inflexability. God must be a certain way, things must be a certain way, and they will yell until things get that way... All of the religious people I've met that I respect seem to be comfortable with a certain level of uncertainty. There is an understanding that things will work out, that things are going the way they should be. Or as Mary pointed out the other night, they trust God.
So think about those things the next time you hear someone on a religious rant. I hope it isn't me... :-)
I had an interesting discussion after the meeting the other night and one of the ladies brought up something that rang true to me. I can't remember the exact way this was put (Mary, please correct me if I've butchered this) but the general idea is that all fundamentalism seems to be driven by fear.
The fear could be of any number of things. They could be afraid of being wrong, of other people thinking they're wrong, of the influence of people outside the group, or maybe even schisms inside the group. The one thing they never seem to be afraid of is the one thing they should be. They don't seem to be afraid of God. They don't have any problem with judging and carrying out what they think of as God's will. They feel the need to point out the errors of others if not carry out justice in the here and now. They seem to also fear anyone "getting away" with something. It's as if they don't trust God. They want justice NOW! Why wait? What if the offending party doesn't end up in hell?
The lack of trust can also manifest itself in inflexability. God must be a certain way, things must be a certain way, and they will yell until things get that way... All of the religious people I've met that I respect seem to be comfortable with a certain level of uncertainty. There is an understanding that things will work out, that things are going the way they should be. Or as Mary pointed out the other night, they trust God.
So think about those things the next time you hear someone on a religious rant. I hope it isn't me... :-)
Nov 20, 2008
Prop 8, Detroit Bailout, and other things...
Sorry I haven't been posting for a while, just haven't been up to it. I have been systematically worn down with all of the crazy economic talk, I just can't deal with it anymore... Imagine my surprise when senators and congressmen didn't rush through bailout legislation for Detroit. I am pleasantly surprised that there is some scrutiny. I'm also amazed that people are now finally realizing that the status quo up there is not sustainable. We don't have to worry about what will happen if they fail, they have already failed. I recently saw a report that essentially said that the amount of money that has been thrown away up there in capital expenditures over the past 15 years could have bought all of the shares of Honda, Hyndai, and several other big automakers. Unbelievable... Anyway, they will have to go through bankruptcy and with any luck they will be able to reorganize enough to make those businesses viable again.
I see that the supreme court of California is going to weigh in on prop 8. I have already written about what I think of that law, that's not what this is about. There are plenty of people that are getting indignant over the court even looking at this. After all, "the people" have spoken, this is a democracy, right? We will hear more about "activist judges" and how they can usurp the will of the people...
It's important to remember that the courts are at their best when they overturn popular laws. One of the basic functions of the court is to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Just because people like a law does not mean that it should be in effect. This is, IMO, one of the basic functions of a government, protecting individual rights.
The classic examples of this in American history were slavery and then later the Jim Crow laws. Slavery was popular across the south, and I'm sure there were fans of it in the north as well. The Jim Crow laws had wide support through the south. In the courts, Brown vs. Board of Education is a prime example of "activist judges." They usurped the law that had been voted into effect by the population. Who's complaining about that now?
I think the prop 8 issue is more complicated from a legal perspective, and I know nothing about the California constitution so I'm not going to guess on the outcome. I do know this; if the courts say that the law is constitutional, it will be on technical legalities buried in the constitution. If they overturn it, it will because they felt that rights that are defined in the constitution are being withheld. If that happens, it will be an example of the courts doing what they are supposed to do, no matter what people think of them...
I see that the supreme court of California is going to weigh in on prop 8. I have already written about what I think of that law, that's not what this is about. There are plenty of people that are getting indignant over the court even looking at this. After all, "the people" have spoken, this is a democracy, right? We will hear more about "activist judges" and how they can usurp the will of the people...
It's important to remember that the courts are at their best when they overturn popular laws. One of the basic functions of the court is to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Just because people like a law does not mean that it should be in effect. This is, IMO, one of the basic functions of a government, protecting individual rights.
The classic examples of this in American history were slavery and then later the Jim Crow laws. Slavery was popular across the south, and I'm sure there were fans of it in the north as well. The Jim Crow laws had wide support through the south. In the courts, Brown vs. Board of Education is a prime example of "activist judges." They usurped the law that had been voted into effect by the population. Who's complaining about that now?
I think the prop 8 issue is more complicated from a legal perspective, and I know nothing about the California constitution so I'm not going to guess on the outcome. I do know this; if the courts say that the law is constitutional, it will be on technical legalities buried in the constitution. If they overturn it, it will because they felt that rights that are defined in the constitution are being withheld. If that happens, it will be an example of the courts doing what they are supposed to do, no matter what people think of them...
Nov 13, 2008
"Tear down this wall!" and freedom in the middle east
I heard a clip of this speech the other day on the radio and I realized that I had never heard the entire thing. I made the effort and I'm glad I did. It's quite the history lesson. It's also good to hear the man himself instead of relying on fuzzy memories and modern critics. Listen to it here:
The first 30 seconds or so is a blurb about who is hosting the file, the speech begins after that. This wasn't that long ago, a little over 20 years, but my how things have changed! Some of the more interesting bits IMO:
1) "The Soviet Union is pointing nuclear weapons at all of the capitals of Europe..." Wow, doesn't that take you back? We were worried about nuclear war, and for good reason. Reagan has the reputation of being a war monger, but listen and you'll hear a man that felt that he was doing what had to be done. he certainly didn't seem to relish the arms race...
2) SDI. Yes, I can hear all of you groan from here. The "Star Wars" project was an infamous government waste of money. It was a waste insofar as it didn't actually produce any sort of defense anything and cost an amazing amount of money. Believe it or not, there are more than a few historians that credit the SDI with the beginning of the end of the arms race. How? As early as 1968, Reagan had written that the best way to make the Soviet Union collapse was to make them spend a lot of money. His reading of Hayek made him realize that the Soviet system was inherently inefficient (despite all sorts of people, including a fair number of economists thinking otherwise). The American system could absorb many more losses and still function fairly well. History has born out both Hayek's and Regan's visions. SDI didn't have to work, in fact I'm sure that Regan knew it wouldn't work. All he had to do was convince the Soviets that there was a way to make it work given enough money. The Soviets couldn't start that kind of research and keep up the ongoing arms race. It was the first crack in their armor, SDI is what made it clear that the US could afford much more than the Soviets, and they started to change...
3) Freedom. I know that use of "freedom" in a political speech is out of favor these days due to dub-ya's mistakes in the name of it. But really, what Reagan said and what W has promised isn't all that different, so why is Reagn's speech moving and W sounds like a buffoon? I think that it was primarily what was causing the lack of freedom. Socialism was an organized, powerful, directed movement against liberty. The USSR was an easy target, and they were genuinely repressing people that wanted things to be different. Today is much different. Except for a few sad holdouts (N. Korea, Cuba), socialism is dead. There are still governments that repress their citizens of course, but none of them are large enough to pose a world-wide threat. They are also not large enough, or powerful enough to consistently fire up Americans... The freedom that W talked about was freedom at the point of a gun. Yes, Saddam was a monster, but that entire area seems to be disposed to autocratic rulers. My time in Yemen made it clear to me that they were not convinced a democracy like the US's was in their best interests. Most of them would rather have a king...
In other words, the lack of freedom in the middle east was not so much dependent on governments (although there are more than a few repressive ones over there) as it was ingrained in their culture. If you ask them, they will of course claim to desire freedom, but that word has very different connotations to them than to people in the US usually. So the thing that limits freedom is not a monolithic, militarily powerful entity in that part of the world. It is instead diffuse, ingrained, and largely beneath the surface. How do you fight that? Trick question, you can't "fight" that, you have to cultivate freedom.
So in short, I think that a lot of what caused W problems was the fact that there wasn't a single thing that he could fight and "win" against. Today's problems with freedom are quite a bit more complex than in years past. This last administration has been an absolute disaster in that regard. I really hope that Obama can get a feel for the real obstacles to freedom and act accordingly.
The first 30 seconds or so is a blurb about who is hosting the file, the speech begins after that. This wasn't that long ago, a little over 20 years, but my how things have changed! Some of the more interesting bits IMO:
1) "The Soviet Union is pointing nuclear weapons at all of the capitals of Europe..." Wow, doesn't that take you back? We were worried about nuclear war, and for good reason. Reagan has the reputation of being a war monger, but listen and you'll hear a man that felt that he was doing what had to be done. he certainly didn't seem to relish the arms race...
2) SDI. Yes, I can hear all of you groan from here. The "Star Wars" project was an infamous government waste of money. It was a waste insofar as it didn't actually produce any sort of defense anything and cost an amazing amount of money. Believe it or not, there are more than a few historians that credit the SDI with the beginning of the end of the arms race. How? As early as 1968, Reagan had written that the best way to make the Soviet Union collapse was to make them spend a lot of money. His reading of Hayek made him realize that the Soviet system was inherently inefficient (despite all sorts of people, including a fair number of economists thinking otherwise). The American system could absorb many more losses and still function fairly well. History has born out both Hayek's and Regan's visions. SDI didn't have to work, in fact I'm sure that Regan knew it wouldn't work. All he had to do was convince the Soviets that there was a way to make it work given enough money. The Soviets couldn't start that kind of research and keep up the ongoing arms race. It was the first crack in their armor, SDI is what made it clear that the US could afford much more than the Soviets, and they started to change...
3) Freedom. I know that use of "freedom" in a political speech is out of favor these days due to dub-ya's mistakes in the name of it. But really, what Reagan said and what W has promised isn't all that different, so why is Reagn's speech moving and W sounds like a buffoon? I think that it was primarily what was causing the lack of freedom. Socialism was an organized, powerful, directed movement against liberty. The USSR was an easy target, and they were genuinely repressing people that wanted things to be different. Today is much different. Except for a few sad holdouts (N. Korea, Cuba), socialism is dead. There are still governments that repress their citizens of course, but none of them are large enough to pose a world-wide threat. They are also not large enough, or powerful enough to consistently fire up Americans... The freedom that W talked about was freedom at the point of a gun. Yes, Saddam was a monster, but that entire area seems to be disposed to autocratic rulers. My time in Yemen made it clear to me that they were not convinced a democracy like the US's was in their best interests. Most of them would rather have a king...
In other words, the lack of freedom in the middle east was not so much dependent on governments (although there are more than a few repressive ones over there) as it was ingrained in their culture. If you ask them, they will of course claim to desire freedom, but that word has very different connotations to them than to people in the US usually. So the thing that limits freedom is not a monolithic, militarily powerful entity in that part of the world. It is instead diffuse, ingrained, and largely beneath the surface. How do you fight that? Trick question, you can't "fight" that, you have to cultivate freedom.
So in short, I think that a lot of what caused W problems was the fact that there wasn't a single thing that he could fight and "win" against. Today's problems with freedom are quite a bit more complex than in years past. This last administration has been an absolute disaster in that regard. I really hope that Obama can get a feel for the real obstacles to freedom and act accordingly.
Nov 11, 2008
Scalping silliness
I've noticed a few places where people are complaining that the "free" tickets to the upcoming inauguration are selling for up to $2500. The basic argument seems to be that since the people got the ticket for free, they shouldn't sell it. Well guess what? Those people don't think the same way you do, time to move on...
Seriously, regardless of the cost of the item, that person now has something that other people value. If he values the money more than the event, why shouldn't he take the money? Why shouldn't he profit from it?
We can (and should) flip that around too. Why should someone be denied the opportunity to go to an event just because they weren't willing to stand in line/didn't know someone in order to get tickets? If they are huge fans of Obama and worry that they might miss a historic event, why not allow them to pay whatever they think is a fair price? Think about it, what would you have paid to be there when King said, "I have a dream..." or Kennedy said, "Ask not.." or Reagan when he said, "...Mr. Gorbechev, tear down that wall!" or Kennedy when he said, "Ich bin ein Berliner!"? I'm not saying something of that magnitude is going to happen, but there is definitely a non-zero chance of it happening. Why not let people pay for that opportunity?
So many laws are passed with only the idea that "I don't think people should do that," When it's really none of their business. If someone owns something and someone else values it more than the owner, than the trade will most likely take place regardless of what you think. Just let it happen and spare everyone your outrage....
Seriously, regardless of the cost of the item, that person now has something that other people value. If he values the money more than the event, why shouldn't he take the money? Why shouldn't he profit from it?
We can (and should) flip that around too. Why should someone be denied the opportunity to go to an event just because they weren't willing to stand in line/didn't know someone in order to get tickets? If they are huge fans of Obama and worry that they might miss a historic event, why not allow them to pay whatever they think is a fair price? Think about it, what would you have paid to be there when King said, "I have a dream..." or Kennedy said, "Ask not.." or Reagan when he said, "...Mr. Gorbechev, tear down that wall!" or Kennedy when he said, "Ich bin ein Berliner!"? I'm not saying something of that magnitude is going to happen, but there is definitely a non-zero chance of it happening. Why not let people pay for that opportunity?
So many laws are passed with only the idea that "I don't think people should do that," When it's really none of their business. If someone owns something and someone else values it more than the owner, than the trade will most likely take place regardless of what you think. Just let it happen and spare everyone your outrage....
Nov 9, 2008
Professional wrestling
I watched a pair of documentaries the other day. One was on the history of professional wrestling and the other was on heavy metal music. I think I'll post something about what I saw as the link between them on my music blog... I've been thinking about what I saw with the wrestling one, and I think it may be a bit deeper than you may think.
Well, let me rephrase that, there is nothing about wrestling that is deep. I mean c'mon, what a bunch of tawdry, tacky, rowdy yahoos... No, there is nothing deep about wrestling, but maybe the link between it and what is considered "serious" TV might be.
When I was growing up, the big rap against professional wrestling (at least to a kid) was that it was "fake." It had the veneer of a sports competition, but it was ridiculous. The punches, throws, locks, etc. were obviously fake, even for an 8 year old. The current organizers (the WWF and WCW) make no pretense of the event being a sporting competition. In their minds, it is pure entertainment, a show. The excitement is all in the struggle of good versus evil, or at least of favorites going up against hated opponents. In the eyes of fans and of promoters, it is nothing short of high drama.
Of course that drama takes the form of an incredibly violent struggle. They punch, throw, elbow, crush, and land on each other. Then there are the props. They hit each other with folding chairs, they throw each other out of the ring (often times crashing through a table for good effect), they throw each other into, onto, and out of chain link cages. Blood is not uncommon.
"Yeah, but what they do is difficult! Those moves are incredible!" It's true, those guys are BIG. Hulk Hogan was something like 6'6" and built. All those guys are enormous, but they fly through the air and execute complex choreography. They really are a combination of stuntman and acrobat. But they're still using all of that physical prowess to make it look like two guys smacking each other around. It's all about violence.
Don't look down on pro wrestling just yet. After all, how different is that "fake" display of violence any different than any of the run of the mill "dramas" based around law enforcement/hit men/drug culture/terrorist fighting FBI agent? Seriously, why do the programs that blow stuff up, shoot people, find corpses, etc. get a free pass, hell, be acclaimed, while the guys pretending to punch each other get sneered at? "But the acting is more subtle, the characters are more developed, the plot is more realistic!" Please see my critique of wrestling above... All of that is done just to lead up to the shoot out or yelling/screaming bit. In other words, violence is usually the the prime reason for all of that acting and dialogue. Everything leads up to violence, everything is solved by violence, everything is caused by violence, it's all the same to me.
When I was living with Rick, I would often come home and find him watching TV. It was usually "Law and Order" or some other crime drama. Seems like 3/4 of all of the dramas revolve around crime... I would take a look and then exclaim, "Oh, you're watching 'Good Guys/Bad Guys' again..." No matter which show he was watching, it was just "Good Guys/Bad Guys" to me. The more I think about it, the more I see most dramas as just glorified wrestling matches. No wonder I dislike watching TV so much... Can you imagine everything reminding you of professional wrestling?:-)
Well, let me rephrase that, there is nothing about wrestling that is deep. I mean c'mon, what a bunch of tawdry, tacky, rowdy yahoos... No, there is nothing deep about wrestling, but maybe the link between it and what is considered "serious" TV might be.
When I was growing up, the big rap against professional wrestling (at least to a kid) was that it was "fake." It had the veneer of a sports competition, but it was ridiculous. The punches, throws, locks, etc. were obviously fake, even for an 8 year old. The current organizers (the WWF and WCW) make no pretense of the event being a sporting competition. In their minds, it is pure entertainment, a show. The excitement is all in the struggle of good versus evil, or at least of favorites going up against hated opponents. In the eyes of fans and of promoters, it is nothing short of high drama.
Of course that drama takes the form of an incredibly violent struggle. They punch, throw, elbow, crush, and land on each other. Then there are the props. They hit each other with folding chairs, they throw each other out of the ring (often times crashing through a table for good effect), they throw each other into, onto, and out of chain link cages. Blood is not uncommon.
"Yeah, but what they do is difficult! Those moves are incredible!" It's true, those guys are BIG. Hulk Hogan was something like 6'6" and built. All those guys are enormous, but they fly through the air and execute complex choreography. They really are a combination of stuntman and acrobat. But they're still using all of that physical prowess to make it look like two guys smacking each other around. It's all about violence.
Don't look down on pro wrestling just yet. After all, how different is that "fake" display of violence any different than any of the run of the mill "dramas" based around law enforcement/hit men/drug culture/terrorist fighting FBI agent? Seriously, why do the programs that blow stuff up, shoot people, find corpses, etc. get a free pass, hell, be acclaimed, while the guys pretending to punch each other get sneered at? "But the acting is more subtle, the characters are more developed, the plot is more realistic!" Please see my critique of wrestling above... All of that is done just to lead up to the shoot out or yelling/screaming bit. In other words, violence is usually the the prime reason for all of that acting and dialogue. Everything leads up to violence, everything is solved by violence, everything is caused by violence, it's all the same to me.
When I was living with Rick, I would often come home and find him watching TV. It was usually "Law and Order" or some other crime drama. Seems like 3/4 of all of the dramas revolve around crime... I would take a look and then exclaim, "Oh, you're watching 'Good Guys/Bad Guys' again..." No matter which show he was watching, it was just "Good Guys/Bad Guys" to me. The more I think about it, the more I see most dramas as just glorified wrestling matches. No wonder I dislike watching TV so much... Can you imagine everything reminding you of professional wrestling?:-)
Nov 8, 2008
Freddie and Fannie healthcare and moral hazard
Obama had some proposals for improving the healthcare situation. Some of them sounded pretty good, like trying to get rid of "anti-competitive activity" in the insurance arena. The way it has been worded, it sounded like they wanted to target anti-competitive practices by the companies, that'll help but they need to take on the big anti-competitive problems that are imposed by governments. Here's a radical idea, allow companies to compete across state lines. Wild, I know. To me, this would be a good use of the commerce clause in the constitution. Right now, every state has it's own insurance board and it's own insurance laws. Get rid of that with a single, nation-wide set of rules and we should see much greater competition. In addition, with all of those people being able to be pooled, the risk sharing arrangements should also help to lower premiums.
So I like that bit of potential reform. What I worry about is the vague exhortations to "protect" businesses from catastrophic health care costs and the push to require the business to offer insurance. He has also talked about a public health care insurance plan that is similar to what the congress has access to. Making businesses take on additional costs is not going to be good for their bottom line. Ultimately, that will make them less able to hire people. SImple enough...
The other two things worry me quite a bit. I have zero confidence in the government's ability to manage an insurance system that works. I also have a feeling I know how he intends to "protect" businesses from high medical costs. There is going to be some sort of government guarantee that will pick up the tab over x amount of dollars. That sound suspiciously like how Fannie May and Freddie Mac were set up. Lenders were encouraged to lend to people with less than stellar credit by telling them that Fannie and Freddie would take care of any mortgages that go into default. We have all seen the results of that policy. Economists have a two word phrase to describe the problem with insurance like that. It's moral hazard. If lenders aren't worried about the loan going into default, they will lend to many more people. The same thing is possible with any sort of government backing of medical costs. If insurers are backed by the government, they will indeed take on anyone and the costs will get out of control quickly. If the government backs businesses to "protect" them, costs will again go through the roof. Clearly, someone has to be the no man, it will either be an insurance company or a government bureaucrat.
My main point is that we should learn out lessons with Fannie May and Freddie Mac. It's a lovely idea that everyone should own their own home, but we can't have a total meltdown in order to insure that. In the same way, it is nice to think that everyone should have access to any medical procedure, but we can't get into the same situation we did with housing. Whatever is proposed for healthcare reform, be on the lookout for moral hazard problems.
So I like that bit of potential reform. What I worry about is the vague exhortations to "protect" businesses from catastrophic health care costs and the push to require the business to offer insurance. He has also talked about a public health care insurance plan that is similar to what the congress has access to. Making businesses take on additional costs is not going to be good for their bottom line. Ultimately, that will make them less able to hire people. SImple enough...
The other two things worry me quite a bit. I have zero confidence in the government's ability to manage an insurance system that works. I also have a feeling I know how he intends to "protect" businesses from high medical costs. There is going to be some sort of government guarantee that will pick up the tab over x amount of dollars. That sound suspiciously like how Fannie May and Freddie Mac were set up. Lenders were encouraged to lend to people with less than stellar credit by telling them that Fannie and Freddie would take care of any mortgages that go into default. We have all seen the results of that policy. Economists have a two word phrase to describe the problem with insurance like that. It's moral hazard. If lenders aren't worried about the loan going into default, they will lend to many more people. The same thing is possible with any sort of government backing of medical costs. If insurers are backed by the government, they will indeed take on anyone and the costs will get out of control quickly. If the government backs businesses to "protect" them, costs will again go through the roof. Clearly, someone has to be the no man, it will either be an insurance company or a government bureaucrat.
My main point is that we should learn out lessons with Fannie May and Freddie Mac. It's a lovely idea that everyone should own their own home, but we can't have a total meltdown in order to insure that. In the same way, it is nice to think that everyone should have access to any medical procedure, but we can't get into the same situation we did with housing. Whatever is proposed for healthcare reform, be on the lookout for moral hazard problems.
Neuromancer
I just finished reading "Neuromancer" by William Gibson. It's one of those books that I've been meaning to read for a long time. Along with several others, it was the book that launched the whole "cyberpunk" genre in science fiction. What's that? It's hard to pin it down exactly, but there's a lot of being on the net in a virtual way, total technology domination of the world, amoral and vicious characters, and a general world weariness... The original "Max Headroom" gave you a taste of it. You can also look to the "Ghost in the Shell" movies and series to get a more modern take on on the genre.
Neuromancer war written in 1984, and it shows. To me, it reeks of the 80's. I remember what the future was supposed to hold, a never-ending cold war with the soviets, japanese corporations running the world, and a general disintegration of all moral orders. As a story, it's OK. Truth be told, sci-fi books have always left me flat, but at least I was entertained.
The most interesting thing for me was how his vision of the future looked and how closely it resembled today's reality. Gibson's view of cyberspace is still in the future. In his world, cyberspace is an all-encompassing virtual world. When you "jack in" you leave this world and enter a totally different one. You float in space, appearances are dynamic and can shift at an instance. We're still a ways from that although I wouldn't argue about how far away. Technology moves so fast that it's difficult to have any good idea about what's going to happen even in the near future.
That's where Gibson had some trouble. The birth of the internet as we know it today happened 5 or 6 years after he wrote this book. He understood the extent of information that would be involved, but not the amount. At one point, we were supposed to try and even conceive of thousands of megabytes being transmitted across cyberspace. Can you imagine? Thousands of megabytes! LOL, I have 100,000 (or so) megabytes of storage on my computer, I can't really imagine what something like google of you-tube goes through, and neither could Gibson at the time.
What we might consider the more pedestrian things that he missed are actually much more influential that his big ideas. Things like cell phones are totally absent from his world. Along with that is the ubiquitousness of the internet. In his world, only certain people with the right equipment had access. In our world, anyone with a decent cell phone has access.
I'm not picking on Gibson, nobody could see how things were going to unfold. It's a good lesson to be taught from time to time, even the most visionary of artists can't imagine how little things like cell phones will totally transform the world. We need to keep that in mind whenever we engage in long term plans. Things in the future will not be the same as they are now. That seems obvious enough, but we tend to only think of the big things that will change, not the incredible number of little things that totally transform day to day life. It's also important to remember than things can indeed get better. Technology doesn't have to be dehumanizing the way it is in so may sci-fi books. The internet has made the world a smaller one, and I think that's real progress.
Neuromancer war written in 1984, and it shows. To me, it reeks of the 80's. I remember what the future was supposed to hold, a never-ending cold war with the soviets, japanese corporations running the world, and a general disintegration of all moral orders. As a story, it's OK. Truth be told, sci-fi books have always left me flat, but at least I was entertained.
The most interesting thing for me was how his vision of the future looked and how closely it resembled today's reality. Gibson's view of cyberspace is still in the future. In his world, cyberspace is an all-encompassing virtual world. When you "jack in" you leave this world and enter a totally different one. You float in space, appearances are dynamic and can shift at an instance. We're still a ways from that although I wouldn't argue about how far away. Technology moves so fast that it's difficult to have any good idea about what's going to happen even in the near future.
That's where Gibson had some trouble. The birth of the internet as we know it today happened 5 or 6 years after he wrote this book. He understood the extent of information that would be involved, but not the amount. At one point, we were supposed to try and even conceive of thousands of megabytes being transmitted across cyberspace. Can you imagine? Thousands of megabytes! LOL, I have 100,000 (or so) megabytes of storage on my computer, I can't really imagine what something like google of you-tube goes through, and neither could Gibson at the time.
What we might consider the more pedestrian things that he missed are actually much more influential that his big ideas. Things like cell phones are totally absent from his world. Along with that is the ubiquitousness of the internet. In his world, only certain people with the right equipment had access. In our world, anyone with a decent cell phone has access.
I'm not picking on Gibson, nobody could see how things were going to unfold. It's a good lesson to be taught from time to time, even the most visionary of artists can't imagine how little things like cell phones will totally transform the world. We need to keep that in mind whenever we engage in long term plans. Things in the future will not be the same as they are now. That seems obvious enough, but we tend to only think of the big things that will change, not the incredible number of little things that totally transform day to day life. It's also important to remember than things can indeed get better. Technology doesn't have to be dehumanizing the way it is in so may sci-fi books. The internet has made the world a smaller one, and I think that's real progress.
Nov 5, 2008
Being proud...
I was reading some of the comments about the election on my facebook page from my contacts, and I saw a few things that I had to say something about.
There were a few people expressing pride in the US. I share that feeling. Not only have we loudly proclaimed that the government of the past 8 years was wrong, a black man was elected. What can be more American than that?
I also read some comments that amounted to being proud of the US for the first time. That's a whole different thing... For the first time? Really? This election is what made you proud? I hate to say this, but one day someone else that you don't like will be elected president, what then? Will you be ashamed?
I have been, from an early age, very proud of this country. It wasn't due to any particular thing my parents taught me. I wonder how much of my father's outward expressions of patriotism were dampened by his being drafted? I can think of two things that made me quite proud of this country in my youth.
The first thing has to be my family's history. It's no different than most of the other families here. My ancestors came here on boats. They had left behind everything and started with nothing here. They really did achieve the American dream and were made much better off than they had been through their hard work and the opportunities they took advantage of here. There wasn't any other place in the world where that could have happened, nowhere... To this day, I still get choked up seeing pictures of Ellis Island and Lady Liberty, and as a kid I was deeply impressed by my ancestors and this country.
The second thing that I remember being proud of the US was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US was instrumental in that collapse. The Soviet Union was the epitome of evil, of power run amok. They killed their own people for having the temerity to want to leave the worker's paradise. The fall of the wall and the later collapse of the Soviet Union made me feel that my country had indeed triumphed over evil.
More recently, my pride has been reinforced. Many people I knew talked about moving to a different country when Bush was reelected. I actually did move, I have an entire blog dedicated to that experience. I went to a place that had every reason to hate the US. I think that I can safely say that every single person I met in Yemen held the US government in utter contempt. And I have every reason to believe that they felt it more deeply than democrats in the US did. Wherever I went, people asked me about Abu Gharib, the invasion of Iraq, Gitmo, bombings, the support of Israel, etc. Nobody over there liked those things. Despite that, almost every person told me that they wanted to live in the US. Think about that.
Many people here were talking about moving to Canada, Europe, Australia, etc. Over there, I heard the occasional desire to move to Europe, but the vast majority wanted to go to the US. Many people called it "The Land of Dreams." Nothing will make you more proud of your country than people that hate our president with every fiber of their beings wanting to move here. What could be more American?
There were a few people expressing pride in the US. I share that feeling. Not only have we loudly proclaimed that the government of the past 8 years was wrong, a black man was elected. What can be more American than that?
I also read some comments that amounted to being proud of the US for the first time. That's a whole different thing... For the first time? Really? This election is what made you proud? I hate to say this, but one day someone else that you don't like will be elected president, what then? Will you be ashamed?
I have been, from an early age, very proud of this country. It wasn't due to any particular thing my parents taught me. I wonder how much of my father's outward expressions of patriotism were dampened by his being drafted? I can think of two things that made me quite proud of this country in my youth.
The first thing has to be my family's history. It's no different than most of the other families here. My ancestors came here on boats. They had left behind everything and started with nothing here. They really did achieve the American dream and were made much better off than they had been through their hard work and the opportunities they took advantage of here. There wasn't any other place in the world where that could have happened, nowhere... To this day, I still get choked up seeing pictures of Ellis Island and Lady Liberty, and as a kid I was deeply impressed by my ancestors and this country.
The second thing that I remember being proud of the US was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US was instrumental in that collapse. The Soviet Union was the epitome of evil, of power run amok. They killed their own people for having the temerity to want to leave the worker's paradise. The fall of the wall and the later collapse of the Soviet Union made me feel that my country had indeed triumphed over evil.
More recently, my pride has been reinforced. Many people I knew talked about moving to a different country when Bush was reelected. I actually did move, I have an entire blog dedicated to that experience. I went to a place that had every reason to hate the US. I think that I can safely say that every single person I met in Yemen held the US government in utter contempt. And I have every reason to believe that they felt it more deeply than democrats in the US did. Wherever I went, people asked me about Abu Gharib, the invasion of Iraq, Gitmo, bombings, the support of Israel, etc. Nobody over there liked those things. Despite that, almost every person told me that they wanted to live in the US. Think about that.
Many people here were talking about moving to Canada, Europe, Australia, etc. Over there, I heard the occasional desire to move to Europe, but the vast majority wanted to go to the US. Many people called it "The Land of Dreams." Nothing will make you more proud of your country than people that hate our president with every fiber of their beings wanting to move here. What could be more American?
Prop 8
It looks as though prop 8 has passed and will (barring last minute legal wrangling) outlaw same sex marriages in California. This is a law that is clearly about a certain part of the population just not liking another part. In my mind, any law that can be translated to, "Even though it has no effect on anyone else, I do not think that those people should be able to do that," is on very shaky ground. No one has been able to show me any effect on heterosexual couples from a married homosexual one.
Of course all of this is missing the big point. Why is government involved in marriages at all? In point of fact, the government can't stop anyone from being married, they can only deny privileges to the ones that it doesn't approve of. This is a classic case of the government causing problems in something that should really be a private matter. All of the issues involving taxation, visiting rights, insurance, parental rights, etc. do not have to resort to the government giving a blessing on a partnership. This is the real problem. Laws are written that assume that the government must be involved, and no one seems to see the alternative. Instead of forcing your beliefs on others (and that could go either way I suppose), live and let live. Do your own thing and mind your own business. There would be far fewer problems if we allowed people to do their own things that do not involve other people and kept the government out of it, or at least kept the government neutral on it...
BTW, I can't figure out Obama on this. He is clearly not in favor of gay marriages. His opposition to prop. 8 seems an awful lot like partisan posturing. The irony of people voting against prop.8 and voting for Obama was not lost on me. The people in California need to discover the Libertarian party...
Of course all of this is missing the big point. Why is government involved in marriages at all? In point of fact, the government can't stop anyone from being married, they can only deny privileges to the ones that it doesn't approve of. This is a classic case of the government causing problems in something that should really be a private matter. All of the issues involving taxation, visiting rights, insurance, parental rights, etc. do not have to resort to the government giving a blessing on a partnership. This is the real problem. Laws are written that assume that the government must be involved, and no one seems to see the alternative. Instead of forcing your beliefs on others (and that could go either way I suppose), live and let live. Do your own thing and mind your own business. There would be far fewer problems if we allowed people to do their own things that do not involve other people and kept the government out of it, or at least kept the government neutral on it...
BTW, I can't figure out Obama on this. He is clearly not in favor of gay marriages. His opposition to prop. 8 seems an awful lot like partisan posturing. The irony of people voting against prop.8 and voting for Obama was not lost on me. The people in California need to discover the Libertarian party...
More on Obama
It seems to me that most of my friends and family are totally swept away by the symbolism of Obama being elected. Who can blame them really? A black man as president? A switch from neocon philosophy? Big suff indeed. I, along with many other people are a little worried about what happens once the power of that symbolism wears of. What kind of Democrat have we elected? Are going to get another Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter? Are we going to get the guy that helped ink trade agreements (however flawed) and reformed welfare or are we going to get price controls and ill conceived foreign policy?
A commentator on NBC remarked that there seems to be a pendulum swing going on right now in politics. He also brought up the legacy of LBJ as the model of "government as solution" politics. That cuts both ways. LBJ really did help with civil rights issues, but he also helped to create an enormous amount of welfare dependancy and let's not forget Vietnam. Those latter things are part and parcel of a philosophy that government is the solution to all things. Government spending also ballooned, it has been the high water mark for government spending until the current president. That's not accidental, W also believed that government was the solution, but to different problems. The result? All of our money gets flushed away...
The thing to remember is that government is a very blunt instrument. When you use it to correct something, you will also affect a lot of other things and it's impossible to see what the exact effects will be. This effect of government action is one of my primary reasons for wanting government to do as little as possible. The bluntness of government action is also one of the reasons that there seems to be a pendulum swing in political thoughts. One group will do something with all of the resultant effects. There is then a backlash and people like the opposite thing. Of course, that entails that groups blunt force trauma as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not unaffected by the symbolism of this election, but I have some serious worries about this upcoming presidency since his party has control of both house and senate. We all feel good about W's philosophy and his party being rebuked, but don't forget that using government power for a lot of complicated things (like the economy, health care, etc.) always has collateral damage. We'll see if Obama will be any better at limiting the damage...
A commentator on NBC remarked that there seems to be a pendulum swing going on right now in politics. He also brought up the legacy of LBJ as the model of "government as solution" politics. That cuts both ways. LBJ really did help with civil rights issues, but he also helped to create an enormous amount of welfare dependancy and let's not forget Vietnam. Those latter things are part and parcel of a philosophy that government is the solution to all things. Government spending also ballooned, it has been the high water mark for government spending until the current president. That's not accidental, W also believed that government was the solution, but to different problems. The result? All of our money gets flushed away...
The thing to remember is that government is a very blunt instrument. When you use it to correct something, you will also affect a lot of other things and it's impossible to see what the exact effects will be. This effect of government action is one of my primary reasons for wanting government to do as little as possible. The bluntness of government action is also one of the reasons that there seems to be a pendulum swing in political thoughts. One group will do something with all of the resultant effects. There is then a backlash and people like the opposite thing. Of course, that entails that groups blunt force trauma as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not unaffected by the symbolism of this election, but I have some serious worries about this upcoming presidency since his party has control of both house and senate. We all feel good about W's philosophy and his party being rebuked, but don't forget that using government power for a lot of complicated things (like the economy, health care, etc.) always has collateral damage. We'll see if Obama will be any better at limiting the damage...
Republicans
It's easy to see why republicans are disliked so much. During McCain's (very nice) speech, Obama was booed. Real classy guys. No one likes a sore loser... There was general applause when Obama mentioned McCain during the acceptance speech. What is it that makes Republicans so good at being nasty?
Whew!
I have been pretty clear in my not liking Obama overall. I will say this though, for the first time in 8 years, the prospect of not having Bush and Cheney in the White House feels real. Right now, that is far more overwhelming than Obama's win to me. He does give a good speech, that's also a kind of relief, a president that uses English properly!
I am cautiously optimistic about Obama's foreign policy. If he puts "getting along" as a higher priority than being tough, I will love him. It can go a long way... Some of his comments about Pakistan make me worry a bit, but I think that the change from the neocons will do this country (and almost all others) a world of good. With any luck, he will remember how much trading with other people engenders good feelings.
It is also just now starting to dawn on me how uplifting this could be to people that have traditionally given up on life. He is a great story, there's no getting around it.
I am still worried about the economics that we will be subjected to in the next 4 years. A lot of what he is saying sounds like trouble. Here's my request for Obama; please please please keep the rules simple. People and businesses can deal with just about any (reasonable) rules in the game, as long as they don't vary. I know that legislation will be passed to "fix" the economy. I am inherently distrustful of things like that, but if he knows when to leave well enough alone, I think the downside can be mostly avoided. Do whatever you think you need to do and then stop. Constant fiddling is much more dangerous than anything else, look at FDR for a good history lesson.
There are a couple of obvious downsides to this night. The first I'll only mention in passing but it needs to be said. Obama is the most likely president to be assassinated that we have ever had. I think that the odds are slim, but they are higher than anyone in recent memory. Not only is his skin color an issue to some, but the absolute frenzy his supporters have been whipped into may have the opposite effect on someone that is disposed to hate him...
The other thing to watch out for is high expectations. Right now, he is promising the world and everything in it. Everyone should be ready for the things that he can't do, or does and does badly. I do think he'll have a long honeymoon unless he totally screws something up.
Bush has been so bad for so long. His "legacy" was written all over this election Not only were republicans in general in a bad way, but the voter turnout can be correlated with him as well. It was great to see people so pissed off. Only 2 more months of W, I wonder if I'll be able to take it...
I am cautiously optimistic about Obama's foreign policy. If he puts "getting along" as a higher priority than being tough, I will love him. It can go a long way... Some of his comments about Pakistan make me worry a bit, but I think that the change from the neocons will do this country (and almost all others) a world of good. With any luck, he will remember how much trading with other people engenders good feelings.
It is also just now starting to dawn on me how uplifting this could be to people that have traditionally given up on life. He is a great story, there's no getting around it.
I am still worried about the economics that we will be subjected to in the next 4 years. A lot of what he is saying sounds like trouble. Here's my request for Obama; please please please keep the rules simple. People and businesses can deal with just about any (reasonable) rules in the game, as long as they don't vary. I know that legislation will be passed to "fix" the economy. I am inherently distrustful of things like that, but if he knows when to leave well enough alone, I think the downside can be mostly avoided. Do whatever you think you need to do and then stop. Constant fiddling is much more dangerous than anything else, look at FDR for a good history lesson.
There are a couple of obvious downsides to this night. The first I'll only mention in passing but it needs to be said. Obama is the most likely president to be assassinated that we have ever had. I think that the odds are slim, but they are higher than anyone in recent memory. Not only is his skin color an issue to some, but the absolute frenzy his supporters have been whipped into may have the opposite effect on someone that is disposed to hate him...
The other thing to watch out for is high expectations. Right now, he is promising the world and everything in it. Everyone should be ready for the things that he can't do, or does and does badly. I do think he'll have a long honeymoon unless he totally screws something up.
Bush has been so bad for so long. His "legacy" was written all over this election Not only were republicans in general in a bad way, but the voter turnout can be correlated with him as well. It was great to see people so pissed off. Only 2 more months of W, I wonder if I'll be able to take it...
Nov 2, 2008
A Facebook group I just joined
It's called 2008 third party movement. There are some significant differences between the various so-called third parties, but here are some things they have in common:
"The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.
We Agree
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds."
I only have some small quibbles with the foreign policy, but overall I agree with everything. In addition, I think that all of these things are much more important than anything the big two have been talking about. I wish more people were concerned about this stuff instead of indulging in rooting for and/or against a "side."
"The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.
We Agree
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds."
I only have some small quibbles with the foreign policy, but overall I agree with everything. In addition, I think that all of these things are much more important than anything the big two have been talking about. I wish more people were concerned about this stuff instead of indulging in rooting for and/or against a "side."