September 16, 2013

We are certainly bounded by our culture,

but who designed the culture that bounds us? How is it distributed and how do we acquire it? How diverse is the marketplace of ideas? Ideology, on the right and the left, has become little more than a consumer product. The institutions that have traditionally been a bulwark against mercantilism have been co-opted or marginalized by the profit motive, and when they fail, disaster capitalism can find a way to make money off of that.

College enrollment is going up, but look what the kids are studying:


http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/figures/fig_16.asp?referrer=figures

And add to that the number of disciplines that are considered mere extensions of business like communications, journalism, engineering, health professions and the arts. While the objectives and methods of business are obvious, how many people are trained in other disciplines within the context of those same methods and objectives? That's how we get Madison Avenue, network television, HMO's, Google Glass, Twitter, SSRI uptake inhibitors for "social anxiety", Olestra, Fox News and the Southern Baptist Convention.

I once talked to a cowboy that trained horses for a living. He said the trick to training horses was to make the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard. We are suffering from a national sense of anomie because our culture is been skewed to train us to make the wrong thing easy and the right thing hard. Today, given the obvious dangers over the horizon regarding resource depletion and climate change, the wrong thing is to do it the way we've done it for hundreds of years.

The term "liberal" refers to increased, or "liberally applied", cultural change. That's why we need a Democratic congress in 2014, because it's our best chance for change in a time when cultural change will make or break our country and our species. Conservatism simply makes no sense given what we know about the world today and our prospects for tomorrow.

Everywhere you look, from incessant culture wars to packaged cable television, your culture is doled out to you . Ninety nine percent of the images people see every day are produced by a corporation. Human relationships are metered and squeezed for profit by limiting them to, for example, 140 characters. Political discourse is dominated by ratings driven hyperbole on both sides of the aisle. From where I sit whole swaths of our population have become little more than trained pigeons pecking at a button for a pellet.

September 11, 2013

Meanwhile, in other news...

Blue states go one way in the culture wars, red states go the other, swing states get divided. The split grows wider with every bill passed. And we sit around scratching our heads wondering why congress can't seem to get anything done. "What's the matter with Kansas?", we ask. How did one percent of the population wind up owning most of the country? This is how. We burn off metric tons of political capital on both sides of the aisle fighting culture wars while they run off with the store. Well, at least the money in the store. They leave the ideological kitsch for us to fight over.

August 22, 2013

I would rephrase if I could think of a better way to say it.

I think I would have to assume a right, since I cannot confer it nor prove it exists beyond the evidence given when someone exercises it. For me, and not having given the matter much thought before now, a right is not a social convention or law, but the expression of one's own being. Birds fly, fish swim, and people do whatever it is that people do. Rights do not exist unless they are exercised, and the social conventions that surround them are the result of that exercise.

Rights are attached to actions, and the expectation of action exists in the future.

I don't know if that makes any sense, since I just made it up. The implications lead us to all sorts and kinds of notions regarding a priori goodness and what it means to have certain rights to be one sort of person and not another. But maybe, as we do whatever it is that we do and build social conventions around those actions, the relationship between what we want, what we do, and what we discover doesn't work and declare the wrong thing to do revolve around our relationship between our inner and outer lives. That kind of thinking sorts well with my concepts of form and content in the human experience.

August 10, 2013

What, exactly, do you want fixed?

There is already a process for reporting threatening tweets. What does an alert button do that this form does not? If the objective is to apprehend and prosecute the malefactor, absolutely nothing. In fact, without a certain amount of information, there is no chance whatsoever that justice will be served at all. Unless the aggrieved party plays an active role in the prosecution, this alert button will work exactly like the alert link on DU, which is to say it will do nothing more than hide the offending tweet from their sight. It is probably possible for the programmers at Twitter to see to it that when the alert button is clicked, information about the offending tweet is already entered into the appropriate fields. But the user still has to play at least some active part in apprehending the malefactor. Do you really think that simply clicking a link on a website could or should be enough to send someone to jail?

Again, what does the button do that the form does not? It makes reporting easier. It is a convenience for the user. It does absolutely nothing to help apprehend and prosecute the malefactor. And what are the implications of this added convenience?

Well, for starters there are millions of fools out there who consider a threat to their overblown ego the same as a threat to their person and hurt feelings as tragic as a broken leg. For them the lure of a simple mouse click to exact revenge will be too great to resist. They can cry wolf with even greater impunity than they no doubt already do. The terrible form is a part of the investigative process to determine if the threat is real. That process begins when someone is actually frightened enough to fill in seven information fields and click seven radio buttons. Oh, the horror.

Add to those vindictive egomaniacs the legions of pranksters, false flags, social dominators, and all the other permutations of internet foolishness and the system, which still has to rely on the same basic form to function, will be front loaded with camouflage for whatever idiot is stupid enough to give their victim advance warning of their intent. Efficiency for the user will result in inefficiency for the system. The net result is reduced benefit for those who are threatened online. But there are some who will benefit more.

A few people, namely public figures and those who desire to be so, may get hundreds of threatening messages at a time from as many different people. Increased reporting efficiency will no doubt help them - a little bit. Although I would think that the necessity of filling out a short form for each instance would be considered part of the price one has to pay for making their living in the public eye. But personal convenience is not the greatest benefit for those enterprising souls.

This absurd tempest in a teapot regarding the graphic design on bank notes is little more than a lever for profit driven notoriety at the expense of Twitter. At the very least, these people can attract attention to themselves as advocates for justice with little capital investment. In fact, they can use the very system they are lambasting as the conduit for their accusations. It's disaster capitalism at its finest. And, if they're lucky, they will get their button. And that magical button of justice will become a reminder of those shamans ability to give you a voice. It will become a mini advertisement, courtesy of Twitter, of how they helped you every time you log on to broadcast your advertising laden and data mined one hundred and forty characters.

So an alteration of code from an overworked underpaid programmer, a small change in the EULA just to be safe, and you will get the feeling of security where there is none. Twitter will make money. Professional bloviators will make money. Internet service providers will make money. And you will get nothing more than you already have, which ain't much. And that's how the 1% wins.

July 28, 2013

Because the population in general

and liberals in particular aren't hungry enough yet.

Do you think only conservatives were flipping houses and investing in questionable securities during the last bubble? How many leading liberal thinkers have spent more time ensconced in university chairs pontificating than actually interacting with the people they are ostensibly trying to help? How much liberal political capital has been squandered on the culture wars instead of the class wars?

People didn't get nothing since 1980, they just didn't get as much as they deserved for their efforts. So, for example, women expanded their role in the workforce and now it takes two people to afford a middle class lifestyle. Wage stagnation is only half the reason. The other half is that a middle class lifestyle has become a hopelessly inflated orgy of consumerism. Both of these causes profit corporations and the 1% that controls them.

The United States is just another empire in a long line of empires, and we are in decline. Over consumption of resources, an economy based on finance rather than manufacturing, the conversion to a service economy (a thousand years ago it would have been a slave economy), and dependence on a bloated military to defend the profits of a greedy oligarchy are all part of the same pattern. Between the greed of a few here and a shortage of resources caused by actual depletion and competition for same around the world our population is being squeezed into the corner of a contracting lifestyle. Get ready for it, it's on the way.

No matter who you are or what you have, your lifestyle will contract. For those who are blessed with a surfeit of resources, that contraction will be unpleasant. For those just getting by, it will be painful. It will be disastrous for the rest simply because they have nowhere to contract to.

The terms liberal and conservative refer to rates of cultural change. Most people think they refer to certain issues of the day, but that just turns them into products that enrich the wealthy. That's how they get people to vote against their economics interest. Ideology has become little more than social plumage. Sooner or later liberals will have to get down to the business of actually changing a culture that simply doesn't work any more. To do that, they will have to be hungry enough to want to make those changes rather than simply pontificate about them and living off the royalties. The sad truth is that generally speaking, people don't climb into the trenches willingly. They generally fall into them. Or get pushed.

July 27, 2013

I agree, but it makes me wonder.

Why own something you're not willing to fight for?

Is it a sign of our decadence that we are willing to write off property that is worth more money than half the population of the planet will see in a lifetime of labor?

It's easy to say "my stuff isn't worth a human life" because your stuff doesn't keep you alive either. And it would be the height of decadence to be willing to kill for property that is little more than an affectation. But there is a middle ground, and that place is found a lot closer to having just what you need than where we we are now. The fact that we can speak in terms of the disposability of all material goods is a sign of our decadence. Our survival is so assured by our infrastructure it has become invisible to us although certainly many have died because of it.

July 23, 2013

It's not the liberal elite. It's liberals.

Ideology has become a sort of affectation or social plumage. On the right that affectation is manifest in libertarian ideology. On the left identity politics makes money for those who make a living at it, but the practice of it by the rank and file isn't profitable at all. So people who claim to be liberals, (there ain't many) wind up expressing emotional solidarity with any number of culturally oppressed groups and then telling their accountants to squeeze another 1% out of their investments no matter what. Do you really think teabaggers were the only people flipping houses and buying esoteric investments during the housing bubble?

People need resources to live. That need has been turned into a product to be sold to them. People also need to be recognized as people who are unique and have unique desires and goals. That has become a product too. The marketplace of ideas has been turned into a weapon to be used against us. When we stop behaving like ideological consumers and start behaving like citizens the tide will turn. Unfortunately, I expect that we won't start doing that until we run out of money to pay people to tell us what we want to hear.

July 14, 2013

Aquittal and privelage.

Well, Mr. Zimmerman is off the hook. Six citizens good and true determined that the prosecution failed to make it's case. I can understand how they came to that decision, but I don't like it or agree with it. I think I know what happened that night.

Trayvon Martin was minding his own business, not bothering anybody. He was young and impetuous, perhaps even foolhardy in temperament, qualities not unusual in young men and under more favorable circumstances can become heroism. But at the moment he was spied by George Zimmerman all he really wanted was something to eat. Zimmerman's ambitions ran to something more.

Zimmerman, through his fumbling association with law enforcement, martial arts, community service and weapons, reveals a disregard for anything like civic duty but rather a desire for the exercise of power to support privilege. His father was a minor functionary in the legal system, able to be referred to as a "magistrate" but without the power usually associated with that title. While his father may have, and probably did, discharge his duties as honorably as anyone, it is sometimes the nature of the sons of those with even a little power to be infatuated with the trappings of it than the responsibilities associated with its exercise. George's incessant calling of emergency services to report suspicious activity seems to have less to do with the defense of private property and more to do with the ingratiation of himself with the local police force.

Zimmerman, through his infatuation with the trappings of power, claimed privilege which he did not earn or deserve. He is a grasping toady and a bully who doesn't feel bound by the concept of civil behavior beyond how it can be used to curry favor with those who can feed his ego through praise, or others who could do the same through fear.

The night Trayvon Martin died he was confronted with the trappings of privilege in the service of George Zimmerman's petty egotistical desires. The trappings of privilege - property, a vehicle, race, a gun - were used to cruel effect to attempt to harass and intimidate the youth. Martin was harassed but not intimidated in the least. Had Zimmerman not shot him Martin would probably have pounded him into the ground then and there.

But we can't prove it. There is ample evidence of hate and fear, avarice and jealousy, but we have no actual evidence of how they were used as a fulcrum for injustice. And the tragedy of our ignorance makes a mockery of the law.

July 4, 2013

The flag.

I rather like the flag. I don't feel embarrassed or self conscious at my pleasure at the sight of Old Glory. I don't like to see it mistreated or damaged. I don't like to see it disrespected. The flag symbolizes something very important to me and to all of us. It doesn't symbolize concepts like freedom or democracy. It certainly doesn't symbolize a political agenda. It's not a symbol of any ideological abstraction. The flag is you. The flag is my tribe. No matter who you are or where you are, if you are a citizen of the United States, I'm on your side.

Have a happy Independence Day.

June 25, 2013

Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence. ****** Commentary Added******

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse.
“Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

Given current trends in crime, the political will to enact sweeping gun control laws is working against significant headwind in terms of public support. It appears that only those who stand to profit most from beating the ideological drum see any use in doing so. The irony is that if the crime rate spikes, or even perceptibly rises (as it surely must) perceptions by the public will likely prompt them to support increased access to personal firearms for the simple reason that the police can't jump through a rip in the fabric of time. People feel pretty safe now. When they feel less safe, they will buy more guns.

8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.” According to a Pew Foundation report, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.”

While homes and communities with more guns are certainly likely to have more gun related incidents, such statistics are useless when applied from the point of view of any given person who has to make an individual risk assessment rather than a broad evaluation of risk over a large geographic or demographic swaths of the population. Such dependence on ideologically based systems invariably turn those who will be harmed by such an approach into collateral damage in defense of ideology and invariably fall heaviest on those least able to bear the burden of support for such policies.

6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide.
From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”

While “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides" seem to be poorly thought out, the circumstances that lead to that decision whether impetuous or carefully planned remain. Disarming people to keep them from committing suicide without adequate social support for the problems that cause the desire for suicide is more of a defense of ideology than the people it purports to help. Controlling people's behavior without guidance and support is an exercise in state sponsored negative reinforcement that creates an entire cadre of walking wounded that is much more likely to vote for someone who at least sounds like they actually care about them rather than a disassociated ideology.

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively.
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

A firearm is dual use technology. And laws that regulate the function or availability of any firearm will impact it's use for both good and ill. Raise the bar on function or availability and people will be injured or killed as a result. Since the nature of any firearm regulation impacts people in the context of life and death, each and every negative outcome of such regulation carries significant personal, social, and political weight. Any argument that emphasizes regulation based on the impact of firearms on either side of the debate at the expense of the other becomes increasingly fraudulent the greater the degree of obsession. Such obsession only profits those groups whose business model is designed to profit from irrational fears and misconceptions surrounding the reality of firearms in favor of the creation of a doctrinaire ideology the purpose of which is to support that ideology and the profits generated from it.


-------------

More at link.