Showing posts with label Socratic Rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socratic Rants. Show all posts
Friday, October 8, 2010
Vox Populi - A Socratic Rant
In latin, "Voice of the People." Although seldom seen on any reasonable scale, the idea of the Vox Populi is an exploitable dream that has been dreamt by many and used to control large numbers of "ordinary guys" throughout time. Liberals claim it on welfare and taxing the rich, and (in the past more then now) opposing the norms of society, while conservatives claim it on social issues and representing the values of the working class, or the society which is made of most people. Perhaps most pecuiliar is when freedom or "hope" becomes intermingled with "being taken care of."
I was talking to a friend yesterday who told me I needed to take my mind out of its snare, to free myself of this idea of my life being cheap. I responded to him that you can't get much more free (cutting the nonsense) than being willing to die. Perhaps it is wasteful, freedom often is, but it most certainly is free. But that seems to be a common theme, the idea that people who don't agree with us are trapped in their own minds, and aren't really free, and therefore do not represent a voice of the people. I suspect I'm not alone in seeing how this can be exploited by bullies and malcontents against the people.
And then there's always the issue of education, but here we find a contradiction, for if people need be educated to be a voice, then you no longer have a voice of the people, but a voice of the educated. Worst, in some ways you have a voice of the educators, as their minds may well have been broken and molded to fit an academic "goal" or "proper behavior." When it comes to truly ensnaring a mind, there are few better people then educators, but even with this noted, we must be careful to not fall in to the trap of thinking we know that someone has been trapped. We don't, and if you trap yourself by thinking that you know where someone has gotten an idea without a logically-correct mathematical proof (pretty much the only methodology for properly recording the origin of ideas that man has ever created, and most people don't know how to write one) you will take away from yourself the power of whatever knowledge they may have that they are willing to give. Once you have taken away power beyond your own humble means, you will in turn be easily caged by the clever, the manipulative, and the "experts."
Experts should always be listened to, for in many cases they did earn their degrees through true excellence, but no one is right all the time, and least of all the people who decide who the experts are. The experts too are also sometimes wrong, and they're also sometimes greedy or evil. Further, in many cases even when the experts are right, if we are unwilling to question what they say, we will be unable to truly learn, on any deeper level, anything from them, but will instead only memorize shallow facts that we in turn, deprived of our roots, misinterpret and abuse, not only ruining ourselves, but tarnishing their good name with our stupidity.
Further, an expert in economics is not necessarily an expert in politics, and an expert in politics is not necessarily an expert in science. Indeed, even an expert in science may not necessarily be an expert in engineering. These peoples expertise may well be one dimensional, which makes it both useful and limited.
There are also people who claim greatness to themselves for selfish ends. Perhaps the lowest of this ilk (or close to it) are the older folks who cry "listen to your elders" while speaking of things of which they have no experience, or even talent. These people manipulate and contrive, hurt and disparage, and drive wedges between entire groups of people. They harm families, and provoke disrespect against others who did not earn it like they did. One must be very wary of people like this, though there are certainly true elders as well. Remember that no matter how many years one has had to experience life, a truly idiotic man will learn nothing from them, and there are many true idiots in this world.
Herman Hesse believed that at the end of childhood, one leaves the world of "light and warmth" for the world of "darkness." Today, we, the American People, are confronting the darkness of a government that does not care for us, a president that wishes to manipulate us, a congress that wishes to waste our money and plunge us in to debt, and vested interests, often moneyed interests, that try to buy elections. We are seeing that even "reputable scientists" are not necessarily of any well-earned repute. We see that histories can be distorted, books can be misrepresented, and the shepherds can fleece their flock, or make them in to lamb chops. We are seeing, indeed that no one can speak the Vox Populi but the Populi, the people.
At the same time as this has happened, small nonprofit organizations like the Mozilla Foundation, who makes firefox, the Open Clip Art Library, who provided the illustration for this post, small bloggers like myself and those more successful then myself, and public advocacy organizations that publicize the records of the organizations within our nation, are taking over many of the traditional offices of the elites. A growing number of people are going not to supermarkets and big chain stores, but ma and pa shops and neighborhood farmers markets, to buy the staples of life. Ordinary citizens like you and I are demanding electric cars and new kinds of energy to replace our polluting grid. An unprecedented level of discussion and thought is happening throughout our society.
Finally, with the growth of the Tea Party, we are seeing for the first time in a long time grass roots organizers finally listened to and political apparati organized from the smallest local level. We are seeing the people finally speak. The people are not used to speaking, so at first they will have much to learn, but I feel, now that it is possible, that it is the peoples birth right to decide their own destiny. The time has come for, as Arthur C. Clarke would put it, childhoods end. We have a great adolesecent - he will become a great adult, or he will disintegrate in to nothing. My suspicion is this will turn out well, and I know where we were headed before was oblivion, but even if I'm wrong, it is their birth right, let them have it, and let no man interfere with their share of the inheritance, for it is theirs, and what they do with it they shall live with, or die with.
Monday, August 30, 2010
A brief, relatively undefended argument
I don't have a world of time today, but just wanted to briefly, as a skeptical economic conservative, pose a question to my readers, along with a couple arguments (informal, without full defense of sources, statistics et cetera) to go with it: what is the effect of unemployment insurance on the economy.
The first argument is actually not mine, but comes from the Wall Street Journal. In The Folly of Subsidizing Unemployment, Richard Barro presents and defends logically the case that "subsidizing" unemployment for longer leads to insufficient job search and job acceptance. He also argues that such an action, even in a recession, continues Obamas onward march towards a socialist welfare state.
My response is a "yes, but." I'm certainly an economic conservative, but I'm also a realist, and I know that the acceptance of ANY degree of welfare distorts the perspectives and behavior of the entire population. While I do believe an argument against unemployment insurance to any degree (and it would have to be a "remove all" to evoke the necessary change in behavior) would have made sense in 1911, the year is 2010, we're in a recession, and the large bank accounts, investments, community and family support, and austere spending behavior that accompany a libertarian society are not in place and will not be in place for quite some time to come. Such changes would be better implemented in good times economically, so that private charity and the community can handle the burden of the transition well, caring for their poor (in a reasonable, authoritative manner of course) at a time when they can. So what is my argument?
My argument is that you don't want an excessive amount of job acceptance, or job search. I'll explain my case with an example: you have a pHD level Mathematician who has been trained for years in the development of algorithms and their implementation in computers, both at the hardware and software level, and the instruction of students. He loses his job at the university, due to a cut in funding, a common effect of recessions and political disagreements about the allocation of research funds. Facing a deadline on his unemployment benefits, he takes a job as a waiter at a fancy restaurant, earning about 40 grand a year, using his academic manners and knowledge as the requisite refinement.
In result, America has lost a mathematician, something we always have too little of, along with all the research and its improvements to industry that would've come through the completion of his life, and the availability of a well-paid, family-wage job for a less educated member of society, most likely leading to that members children being raised in poverty and a toxic environment where they themselves are unable to grow to full economic potential. While Barro is most likely correct in decreasing the rate of unemployment, it is the damage to the economy inflicted by the unemployment, and not its actual amount, that must be considered. Unemployment might be only 7%, but the damage to the human capital of society, both in terms of lost educated labor and advancement potential of the poorer classes, and the resulting devaluation of assets, efficiency and industrial production, could equal more then that under normal conditions.
Exactly how much more? I don't know, but it is a question that would need to be answered before the nation proceeds with such logic. We must act in foresight.
Furthermore, in a severe recession where current indicators (including government debt) seem to be indicating only a further downward spiral, the situation outlined above with the pHD level mathematician is actually very realisitic under any number of weeks less than what Obama has extended unemployment to. Still, it needs to be understood, and possibly bankrolled against with government bonds to hold congress to contract, that this is a wholly temporary condition and, in good times, unemployment benefits will be completely nixed to begin a positive transformation in behavior at a time when it can happen.
Unemployment benefits cannot be seen as a long-term solution, as Barro also states correctly that the tax burden of increasing unemployment payout WILL magnify a recession, leading to more ending up unemployed. We need to go back to savings and community, but we can't do it now any more then a man being dragged under by water moccasins can fight them off his back. We will have to wait, and pray, and curse FDR's name, but action, it will and must wait.
The first argument is actually not mine, but comes from the Wall Street Journal. In The Folly of Subsidizing Unemployment, Richard Barro presents and defends logically the case that "subsidizing" unemployment for longer leads to insufficient job search and job acceptance. He also argues that such an action, even in a recession, continues Obamas onward march towards a socialist welfare state.
My response is a "yes, but." I'm certainly an economic conservative, but I'm also a realist, and I know that the acceptance of ANY degree of welfare distorts the perspectives and behavior of the entire population. While I do believe an argument against unemployment insurance to any degree (and it would have to be a "remove all" to evoke the necessary change in behavior) would have made sense in 1911, the year is 2010, we're in a recession, and the large bank accounts, investments, community and family support, and austere spending behavior that accompany a libertarian society are not in place and will not be in place for quite some time to come. Such changes would be better implemented in good times economically, so that private charity and the community can handle the burden of the transition well, caring for their poor (in a reasonable, authoritative manner of course) at a time when they can. So what is my argument?
My argument is that you don't want an excessive amount of job acceptance, or job search. I'll explain my case with an example: you have a pHD level Mathematician who has been trained for years in the development of algorithms and their implementation in computers, both at the hardware and software level, and the instruction of students. He loses his job at the university, due to a cut in funding, a common effect of recessions and political disagreements about the allocation of research funds. Facing a deadline on his unemployment benefits, he takes a job as a waiter at a fancy restaurant, earning about 40 grand a year, using his academic manners and knowledge as the requisite refinement.
In result, America has lost a mathematician, something we always have too little of, along with all the research and its improvements to industry that would've come through the completion of his life, and the availability of a well-paid, family-wage job for a less educated member of society, most likely leading to that members children being raised in poverty and a toxic environment where they themselves are unable to grow to full economic potential. While Barro is most likely correct in decreasing the rate of unemployment, it is the damage to the economy inflicted by the unemployment, and not its actual amount, that must be considered. Unemployment might be only 7%, but the damage to the human capital of society, both in terms of lost educated labor and advancement potential of the poorer classes, and the resulting devaluation of assets, efficiency and industrial production, could equal more then that under normal conditions.
Exactly how much more? I don't know, but it is a question that would need to be answered before the nation proceeds with such logic. We must act in foresight.
Furthermore, in a severe recession where current indicators (including government debt) seem to be indicating only a further downward spiral, the situation outlined above with the pHD level mathematician is actually very realisitic under any number of weeks less than what Obama has extended unemployment to. Still, it needs to be understood, and possibly bankrolled against with government bonds to hold congress to contract, that this is a wholly temporary condition and, in good times, unemployment benefits will be completely nixed to begin a positive transformation in behavior at a time when it can happen.
Unemployment benefits cannot be seen as a long-term solution, as Barro also states correctly that the tax burden of increasing unemployment payout WILL magnify a recession, leading to more ending up unemployed. We need to go back to savings and community, but we can't do it now any more then a man being dragged under by water moccasins can fight them off his back. We will have to wait, and pray, and curse FDR's name, but action, it will and must wait.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sweet Intoxication - The Debate
cc 2.0 Share Alike, lucianvenutian (below) & Zelfgemaakt (above)
One of the great debates of the modern world is what makes life worth living. Today I'd like to talk about pleasure, and the joy of slowly destroying yourself for a smile.
During the 1920's, Whiskey like that pictured above was illegal, and some elements on the far left wish to make donuts illegal as well. Proponents of such policies will pinpoint to the delinquency, sleaziness and poor behavior that such pleasure seeking encourages, along with the costs to the public health (and America's health bill), and the ideals of a higher morality. Opponents take two stripes: the kind that don't believe this is any of your (or the governments) business, and the kind that actually think this is a good way to lead your life. The second discussion is the more meaningful.
Pleasure has always been a part of life, and always will be, and has always been a part of what wakes people up in the morning. Yet it also gives birth to cynical folk sayings like "everything good in life is either illegal, immoral or fattening." Often in comes down to the central conflicts of long-term good vs. short-term good, and personal-good vs. collective good. But there is also the crisis of dignity.
See, when your whole life is lived for a cheap smile, it may be easy to wake up in the morning, but what worth, what purpose do you have to point to? Yet, perhaps too much dignity (or attempt at...) can lead to pride. There is also something to be said for truly being open, and allowing the world to seep in to you and you in to it, letting dust be dust. But still, one must have something of substance, and to avoid this is to taint one's own nature to the point where you start to lose contact with reality.
Cynicism is self-deceiving. By way of "accepting" the bad in the world it persuades its proponent that he understands everything, as if being slightly better then someone else makes you all-knowing. Please cast aside your high-brows; there is a deeper pleasure, a deeper fulfillment, then simple dope. Orgasmic blasts of pleasure certainly have their place, but of and by themselves they do make for a fulfilling life as dignity is a part of you as well. And purpose brings with it a sense of who you are and why you are here.
And often the instant gratification is best when coupled with the deep and true, as in the cases of true love and deep relationships created by shared pleasure and experiences. Joy by itself is waning, but when coupled with a human being, a real, live human being with experiences, aspirations, and conscience, who you understand, it takes on a meaning that will outlive your days on this earth and can come to make your life more pleasant for the future as supposed to just today.
During the 1920's, Whiskey like that pictured above was illegal, and some elements on the far left wish to make donuts illegal as well. Proponents of such policies will pinpoint to the delinquency, sleaziness and poor behavior that such pleasure seeking encourages, along with the costs to the public health (and America's health bill), and the ideals of a higher morality. Opponents take two stripes: the kind that don't believe this is any of your (or the governments) business, and the kind that actually think this is a good way to lead your life. The second discussion is the more meaningful.
Pleasure has always been a part of life, and always will be, and has always been a part of what wakes people up in the morning. Yet it also gives birth to cynical folk sayings like "everything good in life is either illegal, immoral or fattening." Often in comes down to the central conflicts of long-term good vs. short-term good, and personal-good vs. collective good. But there is also the crisis of dignity.
See, when your whole life is lived for a cheap smile, it may be easy to wake up in the morning, but what worth, what purpose do you have to point to? Yet, perhaps too much dignity (or attempt at...) can lead to pride. There is also something to be said for truly being open, and allowing the world to seep in to you and you in to it, letting dust be dust. But still, one must have something of substance, and to avoid this is to taint one's own nature to the point where you start to lose contact with reality.
Cynicism is self-deceiving. By way of "accepting" the bad in the world it persuades its proponent that he understands everything, as if being slightly better then someone else makes you all-knowing. Please cast aside your high-brows; there is a deeper pleasure, a deeper fulfillment, then simple dope. Orgasmic blasts of pleasure certainly have their place, but of and by themselves they do make for a fulfilling life as dignity is a part of you as well. And purpose brings with it a sense of who you are and why you are here.
And often the instant gratification is best when coupled with the deep and true, as in the cases of true love and deep relationships created by shared pleasure and experiences. Joy by itself is waning, but when coupled with a human being, a real, live human being with experiences, aspirations, and conscience, who you understand, it takes on a meaning that will outlive your days on this earth and can come to make your life more pleasant for the future as supposed to just today.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Table Manners
Yet another break from my break:
At a dinner table, you are not supposed to let your elbows touch the table. At the bar, on the other hand, it is considered wise and appropriate. This may actually have to do with the now dying or dead custom of bringing your gun in to a saloon, and keeping your elbows on the table implies that you are not carrying such aggressively.
You are not supposed to open your mouth when chewing food, and are only supposed to use your hands when eating finger food. We Americans/Mainline Anglo-Europeans use forks and knives, although in some country's they will actually use tortilla like breads to grasp their food instead, especially Ethiopia. It was never much of a custom in Anglosphere nations to use a flattened bread, whereas fried foods that can be easily picked up (potato chips, chicken fingers...) filled the void of foods by hand, and cooking beef in larger pieces is also more common in English-speaking countries. Metalworking was also more common in these nations.
What conversation is allowable at the dinner table is regulated in the US to varying degrees dependent on region. This is unfortunate, as dinner is one of the main social gatherings of the day and restricted conversation lends easilly to superficiality. It softens people in mind, body, and soul. Makes them at ease as they dissolve in to the chair they are sitting in, slowly disappearing before their own decadence.
Of course, on the flip side, that only happens if you take it too far. Restriction in moderation makes for ease of relationship. And insisting on too much "real" may make new relationships more difficult to attain, crippling and restricting your life.
Maybe the best approach is to start easy and slowly remove the bounds. Build up. Give people their space at first and slowly approach. On the way, it's steady. Once you're there, it's fulfilling and enriching. Really, you can only make so many rules, relationships are an art. One basic rule though: It's about the other person.
At a dinner table, you are not supposed to let your elbows touch the table. At the bar, on the other hand, it is considered wise and appropriate. This may actually have to do with the now dying or dead custom of bringing your gun in to a saloon, and keeping your elbows on the table implies that you are not carrying such aggressively.
You are not supposed to open your mouth when chewing food, and are only supposed to use your hands when eating finger food. We Americans/Mainline Anglo-Europeans use forks and knives, although in some country's they will actually use tortilla like breads to grasp their food instead, especially Ethiopia. It was never much of a custom in Anglosphere nations to use a flattened bread, whereas fried foods that can be easily picked up (potato chips, chicken fingers...) filled the void of foods by hand, and cooking beef in larger pieces is also more common in English-speaking countries. Metalworking was also more common in these nations.
What conversation is allowable at the dinner table is regulated in the US to varying degrees dependent on region. This is unfortunate, as dinner is one of the main social gatherings of the day and restricted conversation lends easilly to superficiality. It softens people in mind, body, and soul. Makes them at ease as they dissolve in to the chair they are sitting in, slowly disappearing before their own decadence.
Of course, on the flip side, that only happens if you take it too far. Restriction in moderation makes for ease of relationship. And insisting on too much "real" may make new relationships more difficult to attain, crippling and restricting your life.
Maybe the best approach is to start easy and slowly remove the bounds. Build up. Give people their space at first and slowly approach. On the way, it's steady. Once you're there, it's fulfilling and enriching. Really, you can only make so many rules, relationships are an art. One basic rule though: It's about the other person.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Generation Zombie
A zombie astral, in voodoo, is a soul at the command of a sorcerer. Sometimes I wonder if my entire generation is such.
They obsess about awkwardness, live their lives to appease others, have no vision of their own and do the bidding of their parents, teachers, and government without any passion. They push drugs to glassy-eye themselves and fall in to trances. They have no real root, and no real destination, they seem to wander the earth forever. They invent nothing, and imitate much. They are spoken harshly to, as otherwise nothing will happen, and seem to respect nothing but force.
Teachers tell them to love multiculturalism, and they do. Teachers tell them to love socialism, and they do. Teachers demand "volunteer hours," forcing them in to manual labor, and they comply. Teachers tell them to be liberal, and they are. And if the press says a man is a "great leader," they line up right beside him.
They don't fight, don't even really seem to whine much. They just sit there, until someone screams at them. They don't seem to speak, don't seem to think. They just sit there, until someone tells them what to do or what to say.
Good sorcerer, whoever you may be, please, release them from your spell.
They obsess about awkwardness, live their lives to appease others, have no vision of their own and do the bidding of their parents, teachers, and government without any passion. They push drugs to glassy-eye themselves and fall in to trances. They have no real root, and no real destination, they seem to wander the earth forever. They invent nothing, and imitate much. They are spoken harshly to, as otherwise nothing will happen, and seem to respect nothing but force.
Teachers tell them to love multiculturalism, and they do. Teachers tell them to love socialism, and they do. Teachers demand "volunteer hours," forcing them in to manual labor, and they comply. Teachers tell them to be liberal, and they are. And if the press says a man is a "great leader," they line up right beside him.
They don't fight, don't even really seem to whine much. They just sit there, until someone screams at them. They don't seem to speak, don't seem to think. They just sit there, until someone tells them what to do or what to say.
Good sorcerer, whoever you may be, please, release them from your spell.
Friday, April 3, 2009
American Cuisine - a socratic rant
American cuisine can be essentially broken in to four parts:
1 - Fast Food
2 - Southern
3 - Old North
4 - Southwest
2 & 4, and 4 & Mexico overlap to a point, as does 1 & German. Stereotypically, however, "1" is most frequently associated with the US, most likely because it is easily industrialized, inexpensive and serves a useful purpose in an urban or automobile-nomad society.
"3" is the perhaps the most forgotten off all, but dishes like New England & Manhattan Clam Chowders and Maine lobster remain very common dishes well outside the Northeast. "4" is fairly memorable, and probably could be called to mind very fast to any foreigner, but as the unofficial Texas State Motto goes "It's a whole 'nother country down here."
"2" is perhaps the most unsung, and most unique. Also probably the best of American cuisine. Be it the Cajun side, the Atlantic side, the Black side (geography in the South is three-dimensional, partially dependent on color), or the Appalachian side, the quality of Southern cooking will resonate with anyone who has tried it. Though there is always some dispute as to which is which, and which is also outside influence, Southern cooking really is the best in the country.
Possibly the least impressive region in the country cooking-wise is the Midwest. Outside of Chicago, nothing significant in the culinary area can be attributed to them. California can lay claim to fast food, and the Northwest (2nd worst) can lay claim to a unique way of preparing salmon and a few other such things but I know of nothing that can be attributed to the rural Midwest.
1 - Fast Food
2 - Southern
3 - Old North
4 - Southwest
2 & 4, and 4 & Mexico overlap to a point, as does 1 & German. Stereotypically, however, "1" is most frequently associated with the US, most likely because it is easily industrialized, inexpensive and serves a useful purpose in an urban or automobile-nomad society.
"3" is the perhaps the most forgotten off all, but dishes like New England & Manhattan Clam Chowders and Maine lobster remain very common dishes well outside the Northeast. "4" is fairly memorable, and probably could be called to mind very fast to any foreigner, but as the unofficial Texas State Motto goes "It's a whole 'nother country down here."
"2" is perhaps the most unsung, and most unique. Also probably the best of American cuisine. Be it the Cajun side, the Atlantic side, the Black side (geography in the South is three-dimensional, partially dependent on color), or the Appalachian side, the quality of Southern cooking will resonate with anyone who has tried it. Though there is always some dispute as to which is which, and which is also outside influence, Southern cooking really is the best in the country.
Possibly the least impressive region in the country cooking-wise is the Midwest. Outside of Chicago, nothing significant in the culinary area can be attributed to them. California can lay claim to fast food, and the Northwest (2nd worst) can lay claim to a unique way of preparing salmon and a few other such things but I know of nothing that can be attributed to the rural Midwest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
