Tag Archives: Politics

Our Democracy is for Sale!

Well, following the recent Supreme Court decision, that’s the cry I keep seeing from the left side of my Facebook and Twitter feeds. As I understand it the Court found that it was unconstitutional to place limits on individuals when they contribute fund to political action groups and committees and the like. I am not terribly upset by the decision.  Of course there are great many others who are, however I am not swayed by their arguments.

On hand they seems to be saying that money buys politicians. Of course I think what they mean is that money buys the other dies’ politicians. I doubt that there is any level of campaign contribution that would induce Diane Feinstein to become pro-gun, for Elizabeth Warren to go lax on big finance.  There is  a tendency, which I try not to share, to believe that the politicians you support are good and virtuous people and those you oppose are corrupt scamps selling out their country, Virtue and vice exist across the spectrum.

A more substantial argument is that with massive amounts of money, an interest group can get ‘their man’ into office to bent the process to their will. On one level this is true, but it is equally true when you raise money for liberals or conservatives, you are using your money to influence the election to bring about the result you desire. The question seems to be is big money an overwhelming factor and determining who wins an election?

Well that depends on the election. Local city races, state reps, here where fewer people are engaged, the news is far less interested, money can be a big factor, but as the races get more national money is important for getting the message out it is far from determinative in respect as to who winds.

In 2012 Obama spent 683 million to Romney’s 433 million, so you might think Obama bought the election, but that just the candidate’s spending. The national parties also took part; Democratic spending was 292 million and the Republicans spent 386 million.  Outside group also threw money at the presidential race (these figure are just for the presidential contest, not the whole election cycle.) Liberal interests groups spent 131 mill massive outspent by conservative who threw 418 million trying to get their man into office and failed.

I believe that as long as the money flow is transparent, particularly in this age of information, it is far less corrupting than it used to be. This court decision isn’t costing me any sleep, but here’s some advice for those on the left.

You want more out of government? You want to see the obstruction stop? Four words are key, but I suspect the challenge will be to great for your team.

Get. Out. The. Vote.

Too often your team only fields a full force during Presidential elections, while on the right that have managed to energize and motivate their base to show up. And before you gripe that they do it with lies and distortions and slanderous personal attack, that does not matter. They get the warm bodies to the polls in off year elections. You gave them 2010, a redistricting year,  and you’ll feel that sting until 2020 and perhaps beyond.

Share

The usefulness of a character study

In my writing I often employ a character study as a tool to help me out when I am stuck or confused about a character in one of my pieces. I try to dissect the motivations ad the perception of my character and from that I can usually see the event of the plot in a fresh way.

The thing is I will also turn this critical eye upon myself from time to time. All humans are composed of conflicting ideas, perception, beliefs, and morals. We like to believe that our values spring from a consistent worldview, held in a just and reasonable manner. In reality our views are a collection of odd bits picked up here and there like an indecisive shopper at the worlds largest swap-meet.

Know this I like to try to root out my inconsistencies and/or find the deeper values that are driving my surface reactions. In short do a character study on myself.

I have long maintained that I have libertarian political leanings. I do support the general principle that the government that governs best is the one that governs least. I do not like, nor do I approved of that state directing or attempting to direct the actions of individuals. I am passionate in the my support for the concept of equality, and try to live up to that lofty concept and not just pay it lip service.

Consequently for many years I registered and identified with the Republican Party in this country, the Party that pays the most verbal service to libertarian thought. But years ago I broke with them and more and more I have had a gut reaction that their view of libertinism and mine were somehow at odds. I could not simply walk off though, I need to know for my own sake what is at the root of the divergence. Why do I feel this way? Continue reading

Share

Political Rant Ahead – You are warned.

invasion bullshit

This particularly idiotic piece of tripe has been floating around on facebook and has been shared by people who really ought to know better. Clearly the crux of the idea is that there is no difference between US military interventions and Russian ones.

But even if you set aside the moronic call for equivalence this thing is still one of the most rock stupid things I have seen on facebook and mind you that take a level of stupid not usually seen outside of a Michael Bay movie.

So, 22 invasions in 20 years for an average of 1.1 invasion per year. That’s some busy armies, but of course these yokels can’t even do basic arithmetic. 20 years ago was 1994, yup we’re all well into the 21st century now. Below is the list of invasions given to support the idiocy.

 

(1)   Grenada (1983-1984), (2) Bolivia (1986; ), (3) Virgin Islands (1989), (4) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (5) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (6) Kuwait (1991), (7) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (8) Bosnia (1993-), (9) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (10) Albania (1997), (11) Sudan (1998), (12) Afghanistan (1998; 2001-), (13) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (14) Macedonia (2001), (15) Colombia (2002-), (16) Pakistan (2005-), (17) Syria (2008; 2011-), (18) Uganda (2011), (18) Mali (2013), (19) Niger (2013), (20) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (21) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011) (22) Angola (1976-1992)

 

Now let’s strike out everything that is before 1994.

 

(1) Grenada (1983-1984), (2) Bolivia (1986; ), (3) Virgin Islands (1989), (4) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (5) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (6) Kuwait (1991), (7) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (8) Bosnia (1993-), (9) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (10) Albania (1997), (11) Sudan (1998), (12) Afghanistan (1998; 2001-), (13) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (14) Macedonia (2001), (15) Colombia (2002-), (16) Pakistan (2005-), (17) Syria (2008; 2011-), (18) Uganda (2011), (18) Mali (2013), (19) Niger (2013), (20) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (21) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011) (22) Angola (1976-1992)

 

Wow we’re already down to 12, just because the people who made the meme can not count. Then there is the concept that any US force on foreign soil constitute an ‘invasion.’ That itself is a horrible twisting of the language, by that metric they missed the US Invasion of Great Briton in 1942. Also included here are not simply military invasion but joint policing actions done in concert and with the cooperation of the host government. Again ignoring if these action are wise or foolish, I pretty think a core concept to ‘invade’ is being opposed by local government. So let’s strike out those where we partnered with the regional government.

Let’s also cross off where there has been principally air power used. Invade does mean attack; the two are not synonyms. I would argue invade means a ground effort to control territory.

 

(1) Grenada (1983-1984), (2) Bolivia (1986; ), (3) Virgin Islands (1989), (4) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (5) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (6) Kuwait (1991), (7) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (8) Bosnia (1993-), (9) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (10) Albania (1997), (11) Sudan (1998), (12) Afghanistan (1998; 2001-), (13) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (14) Macedonia (2001), (15) Colombia (2002-), (16) Pakistan (2005-), (17) Syria (2008; 2011-), (18) Uganda (2011), (18) Mali (2013), (19) Niger (2013), (20) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (21) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011) (22) Angola (1976-1992)

 

 

As you can see the list grows thin.  This listing also also conflates the purposes for invasion. The Balkan campaign, whether waged well or badly, was in response to genocide.

Yes we invaded Afghanistan after they refused to surrender the murderous criminals who killed thousands of civilians in an act of terrorism.

Iraq? A stupid, war of offensive we had no business starting that I never supported. It was a colossal blunder and forever stained how nation’s honor. More than anything else that act lead to my decision to turn against the GOP.

Also let us not forget that the international community pretty much flipped out over the invasion of Iraq. It was not sanctioned by the United Nations, it was condemned by foe and ally alike, and it created diplomatic rifts that still have not been healed. So the very premise, along with the facts, of this pice of garbage is wrong,

That said, I am saddened that people with smarts enough to read could fall for this poorly constructed, one sided, incompetent propaganda. If you shared this on your wall you have really lost points for pointing at anyone else and calling them ignorant,

 

Share

The Transformative Power of Writing

It is well known that literature possesses the ability to transform the reader.  The list if powerful works that often have deep and lasting effect upon people is nearly endless. 1984 has awoken many a person to the dangers of an all powerful state, To Kill a Mockingbird has opened hearts to the evils of racism,  Atlas Shrugged  has inspired countless people and scores of politicians.

However what I am talking about today is an effect I discovered and is less spoken about, the effect the act of writing can have upon the author.

We tend to think of the writing process in a manner that more closely resembles dictation than the groping in the dark process of discovery I have found it to be. In my experience author do not sit down and just put the words on paper their themes and intention perfectly thought-out and clear. Rather from author I have know and have spoken with there is often a process of figuring out what it was about the subject that fascinated them and in the discovery they uncover truths and insights previously unknown to them.

I know I personally went through a transformation from a single element in one of my unpublished novels.

IN the book the United States has fallen into not a dystopia, but it has strangled itself on a political philosophy that is obsessive on matters of categories for people versus individuals. There is a movement to ‘restore’ the previous system of government and it funds itself with piracy and theft. This militia movement sees the government that, while elected and not a dictatorship, is illegitimate because it fails to reflect their voice. They see themselves as oppressed.

In form the universe and the story I myself felt a sympathy for this militia movement, and a principle character is a devote supporter. In the course of the story an agent from a truly dictatorial power is introduced, working with the militia for a common goal. To writ scenes from this agent’s POV I had to crawl into the agent’s , understand the world from his perspective, including his feeling about the militia. Stepping into his shoes I saw these pirates as spoiled children. Yeah their cause was losing at the ballot box, but they had a ballot box. They’re response to losing was to throw a tantrum because they weren’t getting their way.

Fine enough I wrote that out and it deepened the agent’s character, however I found that my own view of some political movements in the real world had changed.

Here in the United States we have tremendous freedoms, and despite this there are those that the moment they lose a contest start throwing about the charges of tyranny and despotism. Now I can see so clearly the spoiled children that they are. If you have the freedom to, in utter safety, call the President a despot and a tyrant, then his really isn’t one. All around the world people are dying for the freedoms people here treat so lightly. I have never gone back to a restricted view and it is because the act of writing has changed me and it will continue to change me.

 

Share

Thoughts on hysterical arguments

I don’t mean arguments that intent or by accident become terribly humorous, but rather arguments that are expressed in terms of hysteria, usually by overt and terribly applied hyperbole.

I get a lot of political discussions with my friends and family. (Almost never with anyone else because it’s too volatile a subject to broach with people I don’t know well.) It doesn’t matter if it comes from the left or from the right, I am often treated to some wildly over the top hyperbole about the evils of the enemy.

Bush is a fascist.

Obama is a communist.

You know the drill. These arguments can really bug me because they show such an utter disregard for the truth and for the language. In the early 90’s Rush Limbaugh used to say quite a bit on his show that ‘words mean things.’ Oh that is something I can get behind very strongly. The first casualty  in any heated political argument seem to be the English language. (I assume it true for other languages, but as I speak and read no other, I’ll stick with English.)

Something else that has occurred to me recently is that the more hyperbole that is used, the more it strikes me that someone is panicking about their position. That this feels like the rearguard action of a collapsing front. It not only is unpersuasive it makes your argument feel weaker, no matter the truth that may lay under your position.

This little rant by myself won’t change a thing. No one I know uses the hyperbole as a conscious tactic, and as such they will continue to lob them like errant grenades, but I wanted to get my thoughts out there.

 

Share

Personal Moral Standard and Public Accommodation

With the furor in the new and on the net over Arizona’s SB 1062, ‘Turn away the gay’ bill, there has been a lot of talk, discussion, argument, and name calling over the issue of people who run businesses and want to have those business conform to their personal moral standards. So, here I am wading into the minefield with my own idiosyncratic ideas.

First off, let’s take as a given that forcing someone to act in a manner directly opposed to their deeply held moral map is a touchy proposition and one that should be handled with deft care and an eye to personal freedom.  Few among us would consent if the government forced up to kill a puppy to get out tax returns.

That said I do think there is a qualitative difference between your personal actions and the actions of a business, even if it is a business that you own. Your business is not you. A business does not have a deeply held moral map, it is an artificial construction not a person.

So how would I cleave this knot?

Let’s look at businesses and their owners in terms of how the assets are different in terms of protection.

Subject A as a private person decides to host a free carnival for the neighborhood. There is a spill of a slick oily mess, and though warned about it, Subject A does nothing. When a person slips, falls, and breaks their neck from this danger, Subject A is in danger from a civil suit, a civil suit that take everything Subject A owns, cash, stocks, their home, in restitution for the damages to the person with the broken neck. Subject A and their assets are fully at risk for their action and fully responsible for their actions.

Subject B form a business, an LLC or some other artificial construction for the purpose of throwing their neighborhood carnival. They too have a slippery oily mess, they too are warned, and they too do nothing. The person falls, breaks their necks and the business is at rick of lawsuit. The lawsuit can take everything the business owns as part of a damages award, but the business owner has their personal assets protected, but the shield that is the artificial construct the ‘business.’

Any lawyers among you will see that this is a gross simplification by a layman, but the concept is clear, Subject A was operating entirely from the personal sphere, while Subject B was operating from the public one. Subject B utilized laws passed to protect and shield business owners, putting distance between their business and their personal property.

In my opinion, and what I think should be legal opinion as well, any business that utilizes the public sphere, LLC laws, incorporation, and so on are ineligible to claim personal moral codes and restrictions. They are not their owners and by taking advantage of public laws in their benefits they surrender any claim for discriminatory practices.

Share

Some Thoughts on Political Tribalism

A Broadway, or perhaps off-Broadway I’m uncertain on that point, show was proclaim in verse that the internet is made for porn. That’s only partially true, it’s also made for flame wars. Among the most heated and viciously fought of these wars are the political ones, and it is there that you see the purest distillation of political tribalism.
It seems to me that tribalism must be in some ways very liberating. Freed from doubt, freed from choice, you always know exactly what is the right answer, who is the right candidate, and what is the right position. You trust your sources of information and all others are suspect, subject to your tribes vetting before their data can be evaluated.
Now, I am not talking about have convictions. I am not talking about having a philosophy. I am talking about having a team and the team’s position is always correct, even when it changes, it can only change from correct to correct. You have seen the tribes on the Internet. They are the people who never ever surprise you with their political posts. It doesn’t matter if they are sharing a meme, commenting on an article, posting a link, without even looking you know what the position is going to be, you know who is going to be attacked, who is going to be praised, and what is going to be reviled. That must be easy.
I have cast a few votes over my life. I have wrestled with the choices laid out before me. I can look left and I can look right and in both directions I can see things to admire, objectives worth striving for, and freedoms worth defending. What I do not see are enemies, and at it’s heart that is what tribalism always is about, the enemy.
It doesn’t matter if it comes from the left, or if it comes from the right, the tribe is about defining the enemy and drawing a circle that proclaims those on the outside are not like us, they are the enemy and they are not to be trusted.
Doubt is not allowed and doubt to me is essential. Anytime I feel absolutely certain about anything a nebulous as politics, I know I haven’t given the subject serious thought. Politic is culture and culture is big and messy, it is not given to absolutes answers, those are illusions obscuring our understanding.

Share

The Future of Human Sexuality

The most important concept we need to embrace going forward is very simple; innate does not equate with immutable.

Many things about sexuality, human and otherwise, are innate to the individual. A person doesn’t choose their orientation; it is an aspect of their sexuality that is beyond choice and beyond conditioning.  Most people think of this as being genetic, but that is a gross simplification and in my opinion erroneous. Continue reading

Share