Part 1
The way many fellow UU bloggers talk about the Tea Party phenomenon makes it clear to me that they really don't understand what is motivating them; their emotions, their fears, and most especially why now? While I am not a Tea Party organizer, I have been an old line (meaning not religious right) conservative all my adult life; perhaps I can give you a few insights.
The first thing to understand is that this is not a Republican party movement. Even many Republicans- the type who believe that conservatives must be Republican by default- misunderestimate that this is a truly new phenomenon in American politics. The Tea Parties were organized because people felt equally betrayed by both political parties; Bush was actually a bigger disappointment to conservatives than liberals because they had expected better. My proof? Here in Indiana, the Libertarian party is now the second largest party in many counties- and the party displaced is as often the Republican as the Democrat. My prediction (and remember that I predicted the passage of healthcare reform back in August of last year) is that the next election will see a record number of third party candidates elected nationwide.
The next thing to understand is what they mean when they say that government is the problem, or call new programs socialism, or say of healthcare reform, "This wasn't a victory for the people, it was a victory over the people". Tea partiers are not anarchists, like the ones who riot at G-8 summits; those are left wingnuts. They are not protesting government as keeper of the peace, or provider of services; they are protesting government as just another special interest group. They believe that the government is no longer a "civil service", but a ruling class, ever getting richer while the poor get poorer.
How can they think such a thing? Well, we can start with the fact that the average pay for federal employees is $72,800, while the national average wage is $42,270- and next year the federal average will increase to $75,419... how many of us are going to get a raise like that this year? Of course, even the current average federal wage would look mighty nice here in Indiana, where the average wage is $37,770; especially considering that wages have been dropping here, as they have most places around the country.
Worse than that gap is the accelerated pace at which that gap is increasing. From boston.com: "Since December 2007, when the current downturn began, the ranks of federal employees earning $100,000 and up has skyrocketed. According to a recent analysis by USA Today, federal workers making six-figure salaries - not including overtime and bonuses - “jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months.’’ The surge has been especially pronounced among the highest-paid employees. At the Defense Department, for example, the number of civilian workers making $150,000 or more quintupled from 1,868 to 10,100. At the recession’s start, the Transportation Department was paying only one person a salary of $170,000. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees were drawing paychecks that size." And not only are the wages increasing, the number of federal employees receiving those wages is increasing, according to CBS News; "At a time when the official unemployment rate is nearing double digits, and 6.35 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, the U.S. government is on a hiring binge. ... Some of the Feds' hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama's 2010 budget without significant changes.)" Has your company been hiring at that rate? Most tea Partiers think most of that hiring is just plum jobs for political supporters- and one does have to wonder why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs 25% more employees when we haven't built a new reactor in 30 years.
Liberals see the class struggle as between the evil corporate profiteers and the poor working class; Tea Partiers see it as between the citizen and the bloated ruling class. It comes as no surprise to them that the richest counties in the country are not in New York, where those evil corporations are headquartered, nor in Hollywood where movie stars and glitterati live- 6 of the 10 richest counties in U.S. are in DC area.
Next: What Tea Partiers are afraid of.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
We just saw "Alice In Wonderland"
in 3-D, and drew two conclusions:
1. It was a very, very good movie.
2. I was very, very glad that Pirates Of The Carribean III was not in 3-D
1. It was a very, very good movie.
2. I was very, very glad that Pirates Of The Carribean III was not in 3-D
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Obamacare opponents, don't pin your hopes on lawsuits
Lawsuits have already been filed by several state's attorneys general asking that the new healthcare reform law be found unconstitutional on two grounds, both based on the 10th amendment, which reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The first complaint is that the federal government has no authority to regulate strictly intrastate commerce, only interstate commerce, and health insurance is intrastate only; one can only buy health insurance from a company licensed in the state in which you live- there is no interstate commerce in health insurance. The second complaint is that the Constitution grants the federal government virtually no powers over the individual citizen, leaving such things to the states; therefore, the federal government has no authority to require that an individual citizen buy an insurance policy from anybody.
These might seem reasonable arguments to the layman- especially that second one. That the Constitution grants few powers over the citizen is undeniable; there's not even a federal law against murder. (Unless the murder occurs on federal soil or the victim is a government employee, or it is an act of high-seas piracy, all of which are reasonable areas of government interest) The federal government wasn't even allowed to tax a citizen for over a hundred years; it required a constitutional amendment to give it that power. The language of the 10th amendment seems quite clear on this.
But that was then; this is now. Today, we live in a post modern, Alice In Wonderland world where words mean what we say they mean, and dictionaries be damned. "Interstate Commerce" no longer means what a dictionary might say that it means; this was established in WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). In that case, a farmer had been charged with growing more wheat than the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 allowed. The farmer claimed that the wheat had not been sold, it had been used to feed his own family; no commerce was involved. Since the Agricultural Adjustment Act dealt with commerce, and none had occurred, it wasn't any of the government's business what his family ate. To counter this seemingly reasonable argument, the court invented a new legal doctrine called "Total Incidence", which in layman's terms means "What if everybody did that?" If everybody grew their own wheat to eat, that would depress the price of wheat, which would have an affect on the whole wheat market; therefore the bread on his table, despite having been neither sold nor bought, was involved in interstate commerce.
The irrationality of this argument means nothing to the law. Of course "everybody" isn't going to grow their own; growing wheat is an expensive, difficult, time consuming process that few would undertake- that's why wheat farmers exist in the first place. Hells bells, I once killed an air plant. But I digress.
This bogus expansion of the commerce clause was taken a step further with GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al., 2005. In this case, the federal government overruled California's medical marijuana laws, which allowed citizens of California to grow marijuana for their own consumption. California argued that as there is no interstate commerce in marijuana, the commerce clause did not apply, so the 10th amendment rules. But, of course, there was no way such a reasonable argument was going to be allowed to stand.
The court said "The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market... Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions." Did you catch that? "fungible commodity" means something that can be transported, and doesn't have anybody's name on it. Which means that it's physically possible for a California cancer patient to carry his joint across state lines, and once there, sell it. So despite the fact that the smuggling and the resultant sale are both already illegal, he is, by the Wickard precedent, involved in interstate commerce, and the government has a legitimate interest in regulating the price and market conditions even of a market that has no legal existence. And inherent in the logic is the government's right to assume that capability implies intent; a new precedent in its own right, in my opinion.
To any rational person, this argument too is bogus. It is tantamount to saying that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate your sex life because since you can carry your genitals across state lines, you might then indulge in a little prostitution, which would then be interstate commerce. But again I digress.
Those who have filed the lawsuits against the new healthcare law are arguing that neither Wickard nor Gonzales apply, as health insurance is not a fungible commodity- you can't carry a blank policy across state lines, sell it, and the buyer then be able to use it. The counterargument is that since we are a mobile society, if your state doesn't offer a policy you like you can move. By "Total Incidence", this would affect the insurance policies in all the other states, and so Wickard applies.
I find this logic very, very dangerous. If you can stretch the commerce clause that far, than everything is a federal issue; the 10th amendment is dead. The raison d'etre for our (formerly) weak federal system, and the 10th amendment, was so that we could vote with our feet. The Founding Fathers knew that national mistakes are, by their very nature, huge and difficult to reverse. (Does anyone remember Prohibition?) Their intent was that the individual states could experiment with policies, and the rest of the country could wait and watch to see if it was a good idea; they called this concept the Laboratories of Democracy. If California passes a lot of foolish policies, Indiana does not suffer for them; if Idaho prospers, Indiana can learn from it. That way, the whole nation would not fall from one bad decision.
So which argument will the Supreme Court buy? I've noticed that in lawsuits against the government, there is a strong element of what I call the "Lola" factor. (Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets...) Look at Eminent Domain. In the past, the "compelling public interest" for Eminent Domain was things like roads, (and postal roads are specifically mentioned in the Constitution), bridges, military installations. Today, your land can be taken away from you and given to Wal-Mart if they are capable of paying more in property tax than you are- snatching up great honking wads of cash are now a "compelling public interest", sufficient to override your rights as a citizen. Same goes for forfeiture laws; we've had cases of cars used in a crime confiscated by the state even when the perpetrator did not own the car, and did not have permission to drive it- the GHWOC doctrine applied.
I have no great faith in the Supreme Court's commitment to individual rights or the text of the Constitution. One former Justice actually admitted that in some decisions, they had started from what they wanted the decision to be, then worked backwards to try and find a legal justification for it. Some call that liberal; some call it a violation of their oaths. Will the court find any emanations of the penumbra of the 10th amendment in the healthcare case? It could happen, but I'm not betting the rent on it.
These might seem reasonable arguments to the layman- especially that second one. That the Constitution grants few powers over the citizen is undeniable; there's not even a federal law against murder. (Unless the murder occurs on federal soil or the victim is a government employee, or it is an act of high-seas piracy, all of which are reasonable areas of government interest) The federal government wasn't even allowed to tax a citizen for over a hundred years; it required a constitutional amendment to give it that power. The language of the 10th amendment seems quite clear on this.
But that was then; this is now. Today, we live in a post modern, Alice In Wonderland world where words mean what we say they mean, and dictionaries be damned. "Interstate Commerce" no longer means what a dictionary might say that it means; this was established in WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). In that case, a farmer had been charged with growing more wheat than the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 allowed. The farmer claimed that the wheat had not been sold, it had been used to feed his own family; no commerce was involved. Since the Agricultural Adjustment Act dealt with commerce, and none had occurred, it wasn't any of the government's business what his family ate. To counter this seemingly reasonable argument, the court invented a new legal doctrine called "Total Incidence", which in layman's terms means "What if everybody did that?" If everybody grew their own wheat to eat, that would depress the price of wheat, which would have an affect on the whole wheat market; therefore the bread on his table, despite having been neither sold nor bought, was involved in interstate commerce.
The irrationality of this argument means nothing to the law. Of course "everybody" isn't going to grow their own; growing wheat is an expensive, difficult, time consuming process that few would undertake- that's why wheat farmers exist in the first place. Hells bells, I once killed an air plant. But I digress.
This bogus expansion of the commerce clause was taken a step further with GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al., 2005. In this case, the federal government overruled California's medical marijuana laws, which allowed citizens of California to grow marijuana for their own consumption. California argued that as there is no interstate commerce in marijuana, the commerce clause did not apply, so the 10th amendment rules. But, of course, there was no way such a reasonable argument was going to be allowed to stand.
The court said "The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market... Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions." Did you catch that? "fungible commodity" means something that can be transported, and doesn't have anybody's name on it. Which means that it's physically possible for a California cancer patient to carry his joint across state lines, and once there, sell it. So despite the fact that the smuggling and the resultant sale are both already illegal, he is, by the Wickard precedent, involved in interstate commerce, and the government has a legitimate interest in regulating the price and market conditions even of a market that has no legal existence. And inherent in the logic is the government's right to assume that capability implies intent; a new precedent in its own right, in my opinion.
To any rational person, this argument too is bogus. It is tantamount to saying that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate your sex life because since you can carry your genitals across state lines, you might then indulge in a little prostitution, which would then be interstate commerce. But again I digress.
Those who have filed the lawsuits against the new healthcare law are arguing that neither Wickard nor Gonzales apply, as health insurance is not a fungible commodity- you can't carry a blank policy across state lines, sell it, and the buyer then be able to use it. The counterargument is that since we are a mobile society, if your state doesn't offer a policy you like you can move. By "Total Incidence", this would affect the insurance policies in all the other states, and so Wickard applies.
I find this logic very, very dangerous. If you can stretch the commerce clause that far, than everything is a federal issue; the 10th amendment is dead. The raison d'etre for our (formerly) weak federal system, and the 10th amendment, was so that we could vote with our feet. The Founding Fathers knew that national mistakes are, by their very nature, huge and difficult to reverse. (Does anyone remember Prohibition?) Their intent was that the individual states could experiment with policies, and the rest of the country could wait and watch to see if it was a good idea; they called this concept the Laboratories of Democracy. If California passes a lot of foolish policies, Indiana does not suffer for them; if Idaho prospers, Indiana can learn from it. That way, the whole nation would not fall from one bad decision.
So which argument will the Supreme Court buy? I've noticed that in lawsuits against the government, there is a strong element of what I call the "Lola" factor. (Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets...) Look at Eminent Domain. In the past, the "compelling public interest" for Eminent Domain was things like roads, (and postal roads are specifically mentioned in the Constitution), bridges, military installations. Today, your land can be taken away from you and given to Wal-Mart if they are capable of paying more in property tax than you are- snatching up great honking wads of cash are now a "compelling public interest", sufficient to override your rights as a citizen. Same goes for forfeiture laws; we've had cases of cars used in a crime confiscated by the state even when the perpetrator did not own the car, and did not have permission to drive it- the GHWOC doctrine applied.
I have no great faith in the Supreme Court's commitment to individual rights or the text of the Constitution. One former Justice actually admitted that in some decisions, they had started from what they wanted the decision to be, then worked backwards to try and find a legal justification for it. Some call that liberal; some call it a violation of their oaths. Will the court find any emanations of the penumbra of the 10th amendment in the healthcare case? It could happen, but I'm not betting the rent on it.
Monday, March 22, 2010
I finally saw "Avatar"
And I cannot remember a time I was so disappointed. If you haven't seen it yet, or if you have seen it and liked it, you may want to skip the rest of this post.
There is a famous rejection letter that goes, "Your novel is both good and original. Unfortunately, the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good." I have never seen a work in any medium that deserved that critique more than Avatar. Let's start with the parts that are good, but not original, more or less in the order I recognized them.
Call Me Joe "Call Me Joe (1957) is a science fiction story by Poul Anderson about an attempt to explore the surface of the planet Jupiter using remotely controlled artificial life-forms. It focuses on the feelings of the disabled man who operates the artificial body... Anglesey uses a wheelchair and is bad-tempered... He is allowed to stay on the station only because of his ability to establish a telepathic connection with and thereby control Joe, a creature designed to survive the hostile conditions on the Jovian surface." Ok, I'll come clean; I remembered the 70's comic book adaptation rather than the '57 original, but that's probably why it came to mind so quickly- the visuals of the wheelchair.
Double Star "Double Star is a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein, first serialized in Astounding Science Fiction (February, March, April 1956) and published in hardcover the same year. At the 1957 Worldcon it received the Hugo Award for Best Novel of the previous year." In Double Star, the Martians’ standard greeting is “I see you”, and it is clear that by “see”, they mean more than vision, an understanding.
Dune “Dune is a science fiction novel written by Frank Herbert, published in 1965. It won the Hugo Award in 1966, and also the inaugural Nebula Award for Best Novel. Dune is frequently cited as the world's best-selling science fiction novel.” Is it a coincidence that the production company that financed Avatar is named Dune Entertainment? You decide: Dune is about a planet that is the only source in the galaxy for something that sells for millions per gram; it’s being mined by evil offworlders. One offworlder accidently falls in with the locals- and isn’t killed out of hand because they receive a sign. So the daughter of a chief is assigned to teach him the ways of the planet and the people. Naturally, they fall in love. Passing a test of manhood- which involves riding a huge wild beast- he is accepted as one of the people, and using a mix of his offworld knowledge and his new understanding of this world, he becomes a war leader. They ride their beasts into combat against the high-tech offworlders and win.
While this is going on in the Na'vi scenes, we learn in the HQ sequences that the entire biosphere is one vast neural net. Two things about that- first, it renders nonsensical all the talk about Pagan spirituality, worshipping nature, etc. I don't care whether you're the Pope denouncing it or a Pagan approving it- either way, it's BS: the Na'vi weren't worshipping a forest Goddess, they were talking to a living biological organism! More powerful than human, yes- after all, it was established that it had tens of thousands more neurons than the human brain- but it was a living organism, not a deity. How many gods do you know who have had their brains mapped by a neurologist?
The other point about this revelation more directly applies to the story itself- that they handled it poorly, revealing the interlinked-mind effect waaay too early in the movie. It destroyed dynamic tension; had we not known until nearer the climax that this wasn't primitive religious woo, but a biological fact, the ending would not have been telegraphed so far in advance. Once you knew for certain that the planet was a living organism, then of course you knew it would fight for survival, that the Ewoks would swarm out of their trees and destroy the Imperial walkers with forest power. Oops, sorry, wrong movie- that the Eywa would use forest power to destroy the Marine powered exoskeletons.
And the really bad thing about a telegraphed ending is that it gives you too much time to think- a bad thing in a movie that is depending upon visuals to prevent you from noticing holes in the story. And let me say right here that yes, the visuals are stunning- I actually had moments of vertigo in some of the flying scenes. (You may remember that I'm not good with heights) In fact, in some ways they were too stunning; I began to wonder if they weren't using visuals to cover poor pacing in the story. That led to wondering other things, like the Hallelujah Floating Mountains... obviously they were just saturated with Unobtainium, and in a highly concentrated form- how many floating mountains do you know? Why didn't they start their mining there? They were undefended and indefensible, and disturbing a pterodactyl habitat wouldn't as bad PR back home as killing humanoids so similar to us that you can make human/Na'vi hybrids.
I began to wonder at the poor state of veteran's benefits they had in the future; not only did they not grow new legs for Jake Sully, they gave him that crappy wheelchair, when even now they're making experimental exoskeletons that allow paraplegics to walk again, and cost about the same as a good wheelchair- surely they'd be standard technology by then, if they're using bigger ones in combat. That got me wondering about the state of their technology- for example, why weren't they using drones, for minimally invasive observation? Radio controlled pterodactyls are easy enough to make, and real birds don't mind flying with drones Which got me to wondering about the Banshees the Na'vi were flying on. BS. Those wings weren't nearly large enough to carry the weight of a rider whose torso is nearly as big as your own. I'll spare you the science (unless you actually want to discuss it), but it just ain't gonna happen.
Was I over thinking it by then? Hell, yes- I was losing my willing suspension of disbelief... but that's their fault. Grand visuals do not a movie make; it is the job of a storyteller to keep you so engrossed that you don't care about plot holes or a big helping of handwavium. There was no memorable dialogue- do you remember any great lines? The only complex, interesting character was Jake himself; the others were pretty much stock cut-outs. There was no B plotline to keep you interested between developments of the main plot. There were no mini-climaxes sprinkled throughout to maintain interest. (other than visual ones- but a touchy flower or an Archimedes screw winged helicopter bug are not a substitute for plot) Look at a previous hit scifi flic with groundbreaking visuals: Star Wars. Look how complex that story was by comparison, how many characters you actually cared about, how well paced the shocks were.
Ginger told me afterwards that the ending seemed to her to be kind of gratuitously happy; it rarely works out that well for messiahs. I agreed, but I had expected it by then. They had not treated the story itself honestly; I hadn't expected them to treat me any better.
There is a famous rejection letter that goes, "Your novel is both good and original. Unfortunately, the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good." I have never seen a work in any medium that deserved that critique more than Avatar. Let's start with the parts that are good, but not original, more or less in the order I recognized them.
Call Me Joe "Call Me Joe (1957) is a science fiction story by Poul Anderson about an attempt to explore the surface of the planet Jupiter using remotely controlled artificial life-forms. It focuses on the feelings of the disabled man who operates the artificial body... Anglesey uses a wheelchair and is bad-tempered... He is allowed to stay on the station only because of his ability to establish a telepathic connection with and thereby control Joe, a creature designed to survive the hostile conditions on the Jovian surface." Ok, I'll come clean; I remembered the 70's comic book adaptation rather than the '57 original, but that's probably why it came to mind so quickly- the visuals of the wheelchair.
Double Star "Double Star is a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein, first serialized in Astounding Science Fiction (February, March, April 1956) and published in hardcover the same year. At the 1957 Worldcon it received the Hugo Award for Best Novel of the previous year." In Double Star, the Martians’ standard greeting is “I see you”, and it is clear that by “see”, they mean more than vision, an understanding.
Dune “Dune is a science fiction novel written by Frank Herbert, published in 1965. It won the Hugo Award in 1966, and also the inaugural Nebula Award for Best Novel. Dune is frequently cited as the world's best-selling science fiction novel.” Is it a coincidence that the production company that financed Avatar is named Dune Entertainment? You decide: Dune is about a planet that is the only source in the galaxy for something that sells for millions per gram; it’s being mined by evil offworlders. One offworlder accidently falls in with the locals- and isn’t killed out of hand because they receive a sign. So the daughter of a chief is assigned to teach him the ways of the planet and the people. Naturally, they fall in love. Passing a test of manhood- which involves riding a huge wild beast- he is accepted as one of the people, and using a mix of his offworld knowledge and his new understanding of this world, he becomes a war leader. They ride their beasts into combat against the high-tech offworlders and win.
While this is going on in the Na'vi scenes, we learn in the HQ sequences that the entire biosphere is one vast neural net. Two things about that- first, it renders nonsensical all the talk about Pagan spirituality, worshipping nature, etc. I don't care whether you're the Pope denouncing it or a Pagan approving it- either way, it's BS: the Na'vi weren't worshipping a forest Goddess, they were talking to a living biological organism! More powerful than human, yes- after all, it was established that it had tens of thousands more neurons than the human brain- but it was a living organism, not a deity. How many gods do you know who have had their brains mapped by a neurologist?
The other point about this revelation more directly applies to the story itself- that they handled it poorly, revealing the interlinked-mind effect waaay too early in the movie. It destroyed dynamic tension; had we not known until nearer the climax that this wasn't primitive religious woo, but a biological fact, the ending would not have been telegraphed so far in advance. Once you knew for certain that the planet was a living organism, then of course you knew it would fight for survival, that the Ewoks would swarm out of their trees and destroy the Imperial walkers with forest power. Oops, sorry, wrong movie- that the Eywa would use forest power to destroy the Marine powered exoskeletons.
And the really bad thing about a telegraphed ending is that it gives you too much time to think- a bad thing in a movie that is depending upon visuals to prevent you from noticing holes in the story. And let me say right here that yes, the visuals are stunning- I actually had moments of vertigo in some of the flying scenes. (You may remember that I'm not good with heights) In fact, in some ways they were too stunning; I began to wonder if they weren't using visuals to cover poor pacing in the story. That led to wondering other things, like the Hallelujah Floating Mountains... obviously they were just saturated with Unobtainium, and in a highly concentrated form- how many floating mountains do you know? Why didn't they start their mining there? They were undefended and indefensible, and disturbing a pterodactyl habitat wouldn't as bad PR back home as killing humanoids so similar to us that you can make human/Na'vi hybrids.
I began to wonder at the poor state of veteran's benefits they had in the future; not only did they not grow new legs for Jake Sully, they gave him that crappy wheelchair, when even now they're making experimental exoskeletons that allow paraplegics to walk again, and cost about the same as a good wheelchair- surely they'd be standard technology by then, if they're using bigger ones in combat. That got me wondering about the state of their technology- for example, why weren't they using drones, for minimally invasive observation? Radio controlled pterodactyls are easy enough to make, and real birds don't mind flying with drones Which got me to wondering about the Banshees the Na'vi were flying on. BS. Those wings weren't nearly large enough to carry the weight of a rider whose torso is nearly as big as your own. I'll spare you the science (unless you actually want to discuss it), but it just ain't gonna happen.
Was I over thinking it by then? Hell, yes- I was losing my willing suspension of disbelief... but that's their fault. Grand visuals do not a movie make; it is the job of a storyteller to keep you so engrossed that you don't care about plot holes or a big helping of handwavium. There was no memorable dialogue- do you remember any great lines? The only complex, interesting character was Jake himself; the others were pretty much stock cut-outs. There was no B plotline to keep you interested between developments of the main plot. There were no mini-climaxes sprinkled throughout to maintain interest. (other than visual ones- but a touchy flower or an Archimedes screw winged helicopter bug are not a substitute for plot) Look at a previous hit scifi flic with groundbreaking visuals: Star Wars. Look how complex that story was by comparison, how many characters you actually cared about, how well paced the shocks were.
Ginger told me afterwards that the ending seemed to her to be kind of gratuitously happy; it rarely works out that well for messiahs. I agreed, but I had expected it by then. They had not treated the story itself honestly; I hadn't expected them to treat me any better.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
I'm listening to the healthcare debate in the House
on Fox radio as I write. Why? Because I don't have cable TV, so I don't have C-Span; ABC, CBS, and NBC local affiliates have 8 digital channels between them, and none are carrying this historic debate and vote. Nor is the Fox TV affiliate. The local public television affiliate, with three channels, is not carrying it. Nor is public radio around here.
I find it ironic that the only broadcast source in the 10th largest city in the nation that is carrying the whole debate live is the much-reviled right wing AM talk radio, specifically NEWSTALK 1430 WXNT I'll try not to be snarky the next time one of the big public radio/TV fans at church tell me how ignorant talk radio listeners are.
I find it ironic that the only broadcast source in the 10th largest city in the nation that is carrying the whole debate live is the much-reviled right wing AM talk radio, specifically NEWSTALK 1430 WXNT I'll try not to be snarky the next time one of the big public radio/TV fans at church tell me how ignorant talk radio listeners are.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Is it just me...
Or does the mere headline of this story squick you out? AG: Mass. dentist used paper clips in root canals
Monday, March 15, 2010
Church as school
In her most recent post, Kim Hampton asks Are we afraid of religion? Her thoughts had been inspired by this quote from the GA-listserve: "Advocacy has always been..and will always be…at the core of UU…", and she asks, "Really? ADVOCACY has been, and always will be, at the core of UUism? Really?" I know that many UUs believe it to be. Indeed, if you read the comments to The UUA Presidential Election and The Point of Our Faith at Elizabeth's Little Blog, you'll see that there are people who get incensed at the very idea that anything else could be at the core of our religion.
I was thinking of this when I read the following passage from a story by Neil Gaiman:
Rose Walker's Journal:
I've been making a list of things they don't teach you at school.
They don't teach you how to love somebody.
They don't teach you how to be famous.
They don't teach you how to be rich, or how to be poor.
They don't teach you how to walk away from someone you don't love any longer.
They don't teach you how to know what's going on in someone else's mind.
They don't teach you what to say to someone who's dying.
They don't teach you anything worth knowing.
It struck me hard, because I had made the same list myself many, many years ago. Not in exact detail- for example I did not yet need to know what to say to someone who's dying; at that age, I was more concerned with questions like "How do I accept the responsibility for my actions without being paralyzed by fear of consequences". But the spirit of the list, including the fact that I actually wrote it down, was the same. And I knew, even at that age, that this was the purpose of religion: public schools are the schools where you learn what you need to know to earn a living; churches are the schools where you learn what you need to know to live. And I knew, even then, that the lessons that are the most important are on how to live- Simon and Garfunkel taught me that.
What I didn't know then was that there were two philosophies of religion, just as there are of schools: one teaches you answers, and the other teaches you how to find answers. Religions such as Christianity and Islam are of the first sort; UU and a number of Pagan religions are of the second sort. Or at least that's what I had thought when I first discovered, in order, Paganism and UU. But as I got to know more people in my congregation, and then people from other congregations through travel and the internet, I learned that there was a third school of thought: church was where you went to learn the status of House Joint Resolution 234, and who the committee chair overseeing it was.
I agree with Kim; I hope that the core of our church is not that third sort, "Cuz if it is…friends…we are dead." Not merely because we're not really very good at it, (though as she says, and I have written many times, we're not) but because we'll have forsaken what religion and only religion can do- help us learn how to live. There are a hundred places where one can learn about community organizing, but only one school where you can learn the things on that list- church. And if we aren't there to provide the Montessori school of religion, then where is one to go if the fixed set of answers school of religion doesn't satisfy one's soul? Do we really want a country in which the only school offering the lessons of life is the Religious right? I think that being an alternative religion is the ultimate social service we can perform.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
An important milestone for a Pagan blogger
is this, my 666th post! I mean, people keep telling me I'm a Devil worshipper, after all. So I thought this post should be about Satan. The problem is, I don't know much about him- he is a Christian deity, not a Wiccan one. So I thought I'd tell the story of the Devil and Dan McGee- I hope you like it as much as I did when it was told to me back in 1968.
There are two things you have to remember about Dan McGee... the first is that he was prematurely bald, and sensitive about it. The second is that he was a bad man. So when Dan died, he went to Hell.
Dan was met at the gates of Hell by the Devil himself. "Welcome to Hell, Mr. McGee," Satan said. "Are you ready to choose your fate?"
"I have choices?" Dan asked.
"Certainly," Satan replied. "You're going to be spending eternity here; we want to see you properly settled."
"So what are my options?"
Satan snapped his fingers, and Dan found that they were now standing in a vast field of broken glass- and all about him he could see people standing on their heads in the broken glass. "How about this one?" Satan asked.
Dan looked at the tortured souls around him standing on their heads, felt his own bald head, and coldly replied "I think not."
Satan snapped his fingers again, and they were at a vast parking lot. The asphalt was molten, fuming... and there were the damned, standing on their heads!
Dan turned on Satan, screaming at him in anger. "These aren't proper punishments! You're just making fun of my bald head- admit it!"
Satan laughed so hard it took him two tries to snap his fingers again. This time they materialized in a lake of steaming, runny, disgusting doody. A pig who had consumed only curries for a month before getting dysentery would be shocked by horrible this lake was... and the damned were standing waist-deep in it, holding cups and saucers, drinking coffee! "Is this more what you were expecting?" Satan asked.
Dan considered for a moment. The lake was disgusting, but then, this was Hell... and he did like a good cup of coffee. And nobody was making bald jokes. "I'll take it," he answered.
Satan disappeared, and Dan found himself in the lake, holding the cup and saucer. Juan Valdez's donkey came and poured him a cup of fine Columbian. But before he could raise it to his lips, a huge demon with sergeant's stripes on his arms and a massive whip came through shouting, "All right! Coffee break's over- back on your heads!"
There are two things you have to remember about Dan McGee... the first is that he was prematurely bald, and sensitive about it. The second is that he was a bad man. So when Dan died, he went to Hell.
Dan was met at the gates of Hell by the Devil himself. "Welcome to Hell, Mr. McGee," Satan said. "Are you ready to choose your fate?"
"I have choices?" Dan asked.
"Certainly," Satan replied. "You're going to be spending eternity here; we want to see you properly settled."
"So what are my options?"
Satan snapped his fingers, and Dan found that they were now standing in a vast field of broken glass- and all about him he could see people standing on their heads in the broken glass. "How about this one?" Satan asked.
Dan looked at the tortured souls around him standing on their heads, felt his own bald head, and coldly replied "I think not."
Satan snapped his fingers again, and they were at a vast parking lot. The asphalt was molten, fuming... and there were the damned, standing on their heads!
Dan turned on Satan, screaming at him in anger. "These aren't proper punishments! You're just making fun of my bald head- admit it!"
Satan laughed so hard it took him two tries to snap his fingers again. This time they materialized in a lake of steaming, runny, disgusting doody. A pig who had consumed only curries for a month before getting dysentery would be shocked by horrible this lake was... and the damned were standing waist-deep in it, holding cups and saucers, drinking coffee! "Is this more what you were expecting?" Satan asked.
Dan considered for a moment. The lake was disgusting, but then, this was Hell... and he did like a good cup of coffee. And nobody was making bald jokes. "I'll take it," he answered.
Satan disappeared, and Dan found himself in the lake, holding the cup and saucer. Juan Valdez's donkey came and poured him a cup of fine Columbian. But before he could raise it to his lips, a huge demon with sergeant's stripes on his arms and a massive whip came through shouting, "All right! Coffee break's over- back on your heads!"
Monday, March 08, 2010
Impeach Obama!
That was the centerpiece of the campaign K. Rogers ran in the Texas primary elections for the 22nd Congressional district. It was shouted from a sound truck, and posted on an 18 foot banner. During the campaign, Rogers denounced warnings of global warming as imperialist genocide, proclaimed that London banking interests are bent on ruining America's economy and accused Obama of “pissing on the legacy of President John F. Kennedy”
So what, you say? The Republican party is chockablock full of right wingnuts, especially in the south; what's one more racist teabagger? Well, there's more:
Rogers won the primary, and is now the party's candidate for Congress from the 22nd district.
Again, so what? As Peter Jennings famously said after Reagan's reelection, "The angry white male has had his little tantrum"- let the Republicans keep marginalizing themselves. Well, there's still more:
Kesha Rogers is an African American woman, and she won the Democratic party's nomination for Congress. Here is a news story about the election, and Ms. Roger's website. Note the campaign broadcasts on her website, with their cute "Down with the traitors" theme song.
My point? One more bit of evidence that it's time to stop blaming Republicans for the lack of progress. When you own the Presidency, both houses of Congress, a majority of Governorships, a majority of state congresses, a majority of big city mayors, and a majority of those city councils, it starts getting really old really fast when you keep blaming the other party for an inability to pass legislation or implement policies.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
On the UUAWO and staff cuts
Scott at "Boys in the Bands" has two posts on the announced staff cuts at UUA HQ, Bad day for the UUA, and Thinking about the UUA staff cuts, and we had this exchange of comments: "Joel Monka wrote: Why “oh crap?” I was calling for the elimination of the UUAWO years ago, before the fiscal crisis. Scott Wells wrote: And you were wrong. But more about that later."
I think from the second post that he may have misunderstood the nature of my disagreement with the UUAWO. My argument is neither from political policy reasons nor from polity reasons- nor is it anti-democratic. My primary complaint is that the UUAWO, and our other social justice organizations, for that matter, often do not take their stands strictly on principle but on political expediency. For example, does anyone remember this UUAWO mass emailing?
"JOIN US TO SAVE THE FILIBUSTER! MONDAY MAY 23 4:15 PMEMERGENCY RALLY AT ‘SENATE SWAMP’ (corner of Constitution & Delaware Aves, near the Russell Senate Bldg) AND TUESDAY MAY 24 7 - 9 AM INTERFAITH SPEAK OUT ON SUPREME COURT STEPS
For information on the “nuclear option” and judges, including UUA letters of opposition, Visit www.uua.org.
WHY NOW??
With a vote expected on the “nuclear option” on Tuesday afternoon, religious people committed to protecting the rights of the minority to speak on issues that effect all Americans, must publicly stand for pluralism and democracy. We are committed to a pluralistic society with respect for the beliefs and rights of all people. Our Unitarian Universalist faith guides us on a path of affirmation of difference and preservation of the democratic process.
WE MUST SPEAK OUT!
“To claim that minority-party senators and their supporters are acting ‘against people of faith’ because they wish to preserve the Senate filibuster is an affront to millions of devout Americans."— Rev. William Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist Association"
That was five years ago- fast forward to today: the president is calling for majority leadership in the Senate to abuse the budget reconciliation process to bypass the filibuster, and Senators Begich (AK); Bingaman (NM); Brown (OH); Durbin (IL); Harkin (IA); Johnson (SD); Kerry (MA); Lautenberg (NJ); Lieberman (CT); Shaheen (NH); Udall (NM) and Rep. Jim McDermott have all introduced or cosigned legislation to eliminate the filibuster. Where's our outrage now? Where's our "Save the Filibuster" campaign? If the filibuster is that central to democracy, don't we believe in democracy anymore? The answer, of course, is that then it was a Republican majority and we disapproved of what they were doing; today it is a Democratic majority, and we approve of Democratic Party policies. It was never about the filibuster per se, nor our democratic principles; our outrage was cynical political manipulation then, and our silence is cynical now.*
But my objections to the UUAWO go beyond the fact that they make us appear to be not an independent church, but merely the Democratic Party's chaplain office. They are a complete waste of resources. And no, Scott, I am not whingeing about how expensive the UUA is to run, and I agree that if anything, most are underpaid. Nor do I wish people who have served loyally to be tossed out in the streets- they are capable people who could do useful work elsewhere in the UUA. My point is that even if I agreed with the general principle of church as lobbyist**, our efforts are so ineffectual as to be a waste of resources. There's no reason to believe that our efforts have ever changed a single vote in Congress. There's more evidence for the existence of God than for "...the UUA Washington Office for Advocacy... influencing public policy decisions made by the U.S. Congress and Administration."*** Even if a lawmaker has ever heard of us- by no means a guarantee- he's unlikely to be impressed by our efforts. In fact, the more he knows about us, the less likely he is to be impressed by our efforts.
Why should he or she be impressed? Our vast numbers? If every UU in the entire US moved to a single congressional district, they would still only represent one quarter of the vote for that one Congressman! Because of our famous independent streak? If they know anything about us at all, they know there's nothing whatsoever that would make the average UU vote for a Republican; if there's a Democratic candidate so bad a UU could no longer hold his nose to vote- and I've never heard of one- the most that UU would do is stay home. Because having a church behind him is good cover? The only reason a Congressman would need a church endorsement is if he's taking heat from the religious right, in which case our endorsement would do more harm than good- the religious right does know us, and doesn't like us; I know Southern Baptists who would grant more grudging respect to The Covenant of the Goddess than to us. Because of our unflinching realism in facing human rights issues? After the former president of our association said, “I could not imagine the current U.S. president taking the time to honor questions about his actions the way Ahmadinejad did today.”?
The only kind of advocacy office that would be truly effective is one that serves as a resource, guiding members to organizations in their neighborhoods that can actually do something; a dollar given to an organization with a real voice and presence is worth a thousand dollars given to a group no one has ever heard of. And isn't that what the UUA is supposed to be- a resource to help the member congregations be more effective? Sure, it's an ego boost to have an official "UUA Committee to XYZ", but isn't actually accomplishing something more important than feeling good about being enlightened? I say, when it comes to "... influencing public policy decisions made by the U.S. Congress and Administration.", leave it to the pros, and let the UUA Advocacy offices be our guides to these pros instead. Stop compromising our principles to no effect, put the members of the UUAWO into positions where they can use their time and expertise assisting the congregations, (you know, the raison d'etre of the UUA) and use the money saved in these lean times to make UU a religion that new people will want to join, and current members will want to stick with. Perhaps if we do that, we will grow to the point where we have the numbers and influence to make a Washington office worthwhile. (though I would still have philosophical problems with it)
*And before you say "You're a conservative and are just against our positions", I want to point out that the filibuster issue I mention above was over the confirmation of a Supreme Court judge. I am on record, in writing, that my position is that elections matter, and that the President gets whoever he (or she, hope springs eternal) wants, barring an objection high enough that it would cause impeachment if it were found after confirmation- I supported both Alito and Sotomayor on those grounds. I stood by my principles through Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, even when it meant backing someone I didn't like. I will further point out that Senator Byrd- hardly a right winger- opposes the plan to eliminate the filibuster; he is being consistent with his positions. The UUAWO cannot say the same thing. So much for democratic principles.
**I am firmly against the role of church-as-lobbyist. The first reason is that corruption is a two way street; many who think they've bought a politician find that they have too much invested in said politician to walk away from him when they disagree. Then the rationalizing starts- "hold your nose and vote for him because at least he's good on the important issues"... then "Hold your nose and vote for him because even though he can't be counted on, at least he keeps the Democratic majority"... then you realize you sold your soul and didn't even get your payment for it.
The second reason is more philosophical. There are two types of things lobbyist fight for- the first is to get an obscure, less than obvious problem that is nonetheless vitally important to those affected looked at by Congress. Perhaps it's florists wanting a two week quarantine on man eating orchids because they might carry a blight of some kind. This is exactly the kind of thing the founding fathers were thinking of when they put the right to petition in the first amendment. I'm all for that kind of lobbyist- but that's not us. The other kind of lobbyist is fighting a social issue of some kind that he cannot get the general public to support- these range from prohibition to abortion to sexual issues. This sort of activist/lobbyist has discovered that you don't have to sway 150 million people to get your way- you only have to sway the right 268 Congressmen and Senators. Then the government will do your convincing for you, and use tax dollars to do it- it's the modern version of converting the king to your church, then gaining the whole country as converts. And it's so easy to rationalize... this is THE RIGHT THING TO DO (tm)- that gives us the right to sneer at those we disagree with, and cram our position down their throats by government fiat rather than listening to them, addressing their fears, and convincing them.
***from the Draft Statement of Conscience on Peacemaking
I think from the second post that he may have misunderstood the nature of my disagreement with the UUAWO. My argument is neither from political policy reasons nor from polity reasons- nor is it anti-democratic. My primary complaint is that the UUAWO, and our other social justice organizations, for that matter, often do not take their stands strictly on principle but on political expediency. For example, does anyone remember this UUAWO mass emailing?
"JOIN US TO SAVE THE FILIBUSTER! MONDAY MAY 23 4:15 PMEMERGENCY RALLY AT ‘SENATE SWAMP’ (corner of Constitution & Delaware Aves, near the Russell Senate Bldg) AND TUESDAY MAY 24 7 - 9 AM INTERFAITH SPEAK OUT ON SUPREME COURT STEPS
For information on the “nuclear option” and judges, including UUA letters of opposition, Visit www.uua.org.
WHY NOW??
With a vote expected on the “nuclear option” on Tuesday afternoon, religious people committed to protecting the rights of the minority to speak on issues that effect all Americans, must publicly stand for pluralism and democracy. We are committed to a pluralistic society with respect for the beliefs and rights of all people. Our Unitarian Universalist faith guides us on a path of affirmation of difference and preservation of the democratic process.
WE MUST SPEAK OUT!
“To claim that minority-party senators and their supporters are acting ‘against people of faith’ because they wish to preserve the Senate filibuster is an affront to millions of devout Americans."— Rev. William Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist Association"
That was five years ago- fast forward to today: the president is calling for majority leadership in the Senate to abuse the budget reconciliation process to bypass the filibuster, and Senators Begich (AK); Bingaman (NM); Brown (OH); Durbin (IL); Harkin (IA); Johnson (SD); Kerry (MA); Lautenberg (NJ); Lieberman (CT); Shaheen (NH); Udall (NM) and Rep. Jim McDermott have all introduced or cosigned legislation to eliminate the filibuster. Where's our outrage now? Where's our "Save the Filibuster" campaign? If the filibuster is that central to democracy, don't we believe in democracy anymore? The answer, of course, is that then it was a Republican majority and we disapproved of what they were doing; today it is a Democratic majority, and we approve of Democratic Party policies. It was never about the filibuster per se, nor our democratic principles; our outrage was cynical political manipulation then, and our silence is cynical now.*
But my objections to the UUAWO go beyond the fact that they make us appear to be not an independent church, but merely the Democratic Party's chaplain office. They are a complete waste of resources. And no, Scott, I am not whingeing about how expensive the UUA is to run, and I agree that if anything, most are underpaid. Nor do I wish people who have served loyally to be tossed out in the streets- they are capable people who could do useful work elsewhere in the UUA. My point is that even if I agreed with the general principle of church as lobbyist**, our efforts are so ineffectual as to be a waste of resources. There's no reason to believe that our efforts have ever changed a single vote in Congress. There's more evidence for the existence of God than for "...the UUA Washington Office for Advocacy... influencing public policy decisions made by the U.S. Congress and Administration."*** Even if a lawmaker has ever heard of us- by no means a guarantee- he's unlikely to be impressed by our efforts. In fact, the more he knows about us, the less likely he is to be impressed by our efforts.
Why should he or she be impressed? Our vast numbers? If every UU in the entire US moved to a single congressional district, they would still only represent one quarter of the vote for that one Congressman! Because of our famous independent streak? If they know anything about us at all, they know there's nothing whatsoever that would make the average UU vote for a Republican; if there's a Democratic candidate so bad a UU could no longer hold his nose to vote- and I've never heard of one- the most that UU would do is stay home. Because having a church behind him is good cover? The only reason a Congressman would need a church endorsement is if he's taking heat from the religious right, in which case our endorsement would do more harm than good- the religious right does know us, and doesn't like us; I know Southern Baptists who would grant more grudging respect to The Covenant of the Goddess than to us. Because of our unflinching realism in facing human rights issues? After the former president of our association said, “I could not imagine the current U.S. president taking the time to honor questions about his actions the way Ahmadinejad did today.”?
The only kind of advocacy office that would be truly effective is one that serves as a resource, guiding members to organizations in their neighborhoods that can actually do something; a dollar given to an organization with a real voice and presence is worth a thousand dollars given to a group no one has ever heard of. And isn't that what the UUA is supposed to be- a resource to help the member congregations be more effective? Sure, it's an ego boost to have an official "UUA Committee to XYZ", but isn't actually accomplishing something more important than feeling good about being enlightened? I say, when it comes to "... influencing public policy decisions made by the U.S. Congress and Administration.", leave it to the pros, and let the UUA Advocacy offices be our guides to these pros instead. Stop compromising our principles to no effect, put the members of the UUAWO into positions where they can use their time and expertise assisting the congregations, (you know, the raison d'etre of the UUA) and use the money saved in these lean times to make UU a religion that new people will want to join, and current members will want to stick with. Perhaps if we do that, we will grow to the point where we have the numbers and influence to make a Washington office worthwhile. (though I would still have philosophical problems with it)
*And before you say "You're a conservative and are just against our positions", I want to point out that the filibuster issue I mention above was over the confirmation of a Supreme Court judge. I am on record, in writing, that my position is that elections matter, and that the President gets whoever he (or she, hope springs eternal) wants, barring an objection high enough that it would cause impeachment if it were found after confirmation- I supported both Alito and Sotomayor on those grounds. I stood by my principles through Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, even when it meant backing someone I didn't like. I will further point out that Senator Byrd- hardly a right winger- opposes the plan to eliminate the filibuster; he is being consistent with his positions. The UUAWO cannot say the same thing. So much for democratic principles.
**I am firmly against the role of church-as-lobbyist. The first reason is that corruption is a two way street; many who think they've bought a politician find that they have too much invested in said politician to walk away from him when they disagree. Then the rationalizing starts- "hold your nose and vote for him because at least he's good on the important issues"... then "Hold your nose and vote for him because even though he can't be counted on, at least he keeps the Democratic majority"... then you realize you sold your soul and didn't even get your payment for it.
The second reason is more philosophical. There are two types of things lobbyist fight for- the first is to get an obscure, less than obvious problem that is nonetheless vitally important to those affected looked at by Congress. Perhaps it's florists wanting a two week quarantine on man eating orchids because they might carry a blight of some kind. This is exactly the kind of thing the founding fathers were thinking of when they put the right to petition in the first amendment. I'm all for that kind of lobbyist- but that's not us. The other kind of lobbyist is fighting a social issue of some kind that he cannot get the general public to support- these range from prohibition to abortion to sexual issues. This sort of activist/lobbyist has discovered that you don't have to sway 150 million people to get your way- you only have to sway the right 268 Congressmen and Senators. Then the government will do your convincing for you, and use tax dollars to do it- it's the modern version of converting the king to your church, then gaining the whole country as converts. And it's so easy to rationalize... this is THE RIGHT THING TO DO (tm)- that gives us the right to sneer at those we disagree with, and cram our position down their throats by government fiat rather than listening to them, addressing their fears, and convincing them.
***from the Draft Statement of Conscience on Peacemaking
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Nasty computer pictures
No, not nasty pictures stored on a computer, but pictures of nasty computers! See what grows inside your PC
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Proposition 8 Trial Re-enactment Brings Closed Proceedings to the Viewing Public
From the press release for MarriageTrial.com, a re-enactment of the federal Proposition 8 trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger: "January 18, 2010 (Los Angeles) -- Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking indefinitely the broadcast of a video feed from the San Francisco Federal Court trial challenging California's Proposition 8. Within a few hours, a film production team in Los Angeles was readying a script from court transcripts, securing a courtroom set and casting actors in an effort to bring the trial to the people by way of re-enactment...
"We both jumped in and started calling all of our contacts and never looked back," says John Ireland, who is co-producing the "made for the web" series with actor and producer, John Ainsworth... The production is using professional actors and, where possible, they are casting as close to the appearance of the real people the actors portray.
The team is being advised by constitutional law scholar and Professor, David B. Cruz, from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, which has made the replica courtroom available. He is reviewing scripts and advising on courtroom dynamics and flow."
"We both jumped in and started calling all of our contacts and never looked back," says John Ireland, who is co-producing the "made for the web" series with actor and producer, John Ainsworth... The production is using professional actors and, where possible, they are casting as close to the appearance of the real people the actors portray.
The team is being advised by constitutional law scholar and Professor, David B. Cruz, from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, which has made the replica courtroom available. He is reviewing scripts and advising on courtroom dynamics and flow."
Monday, February 22, 2010
Olbermann and the UUA
Looking up the numbers, I find I made a mistake in my comments to my last post, Maybe Keith Olbermann has a point I said that the Tea Party movement was 5% whiter than the population as a whole; I was remembering old numbers (something I find happening more often these days- I must keep reminding myself I've been out of school for 30 years)- the country is 65.6% white, not 75%
That being the case, I must reassess the question Keith Olbermann asked: "Ask yourself: Where are the black faces? Who am I marching with? What are we afraid of? And if it really is only a president's policy and not his skin. Ask yourself one final question: Why are you surrounded by the largest crowd you'll ever again see in your life that consists of nothing but people who look exactly like you?"
Leaving aside for the moment that I've only been a spectator to, not a participant in any Tea Party rallies, I had to ask myself if the premise of the question is correct: is it the whitest crowd I'd ever be surrounded by? Not according to the article Can Unitarian Universalism change? in the UUWorld. The UUA is much whiter than the Tea Party movement, 89% vs. 80%, with 95.7 percent of active ministers being white; has half the number of African Americans, 1% vs. 2%; and far fewer Latino/Latina, 3% vs. 10%. (and yes, I know that your congregation is different)
This is an old argument, with liberals saying the numbers tell all, and conservatives saying sometimes you have to ask why the numbers skew the way they do. I’ve always presumed the two biggest reasons why UU tended to be so white were first, the reputation UU has for secular humanism; African Americans consistently poll much more devout than whites- they prefer having God in their churches, and second, the reserved, Apollonian, New England style of most UU congregations; many blacks and southern whites prefer a more Dionysian, “make a joyful noise” style of worship. Combine that with the BAC walkout in ‘69 and our demographics were inevitable. But if you agree with Keith Olbermann that numbers tell all, then to be intellectually consistent, you’d have to rate the UUA as the most racist organization in America not listed by the government as a hate group.
To me, part of assuming the inherent dignity and worth of all people is to make an effort to understand why people hold the views they do. To not presume evil intent unless it is demonstrated. I do not assume that all big government fans are budding Stalinists, nor that their opponents are budding Hitlers. When I know that Paleoconservatives and Libertarians have been bashing Bush for years for spending money like a drunken cliché, loudly protesting his deficits and bailouts, I am not surprised when they protest President Obama’s, too. If the protests are bigger now, well, so are the deficits and bailouts- you don’t have to be a racist to be afraid of the numbers.
I’ve written before about the need to take a breath, relax, and examine the arguments before leaping to conclusions and insulting people, posts such as How can you respect silly beliefs? and How theists and atheists can share UU and no doubt I’ll do so again. And sometimes I fail. But we have to try- not merely because it will make more light and less heat; but because, damn it, it’s the right thing to do.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Maybe Keith Olbermann has a point
UPDATE: Humor can be a subtle thing. The video above was not intended to agree with Olbermann, it was intended to ridicule him. Compare the faces of the NBC family surrounding him with the faces from these tea party videos:
Anybody else, any other network I would give the benefit of the doubt to, figuring that they had just automatically presumed the tea party people were racist, and so didn't bother to go to a rally and look. But as I showed in an earlier post, MSNBC has in the past actually edited footage to conceal African Americans.
Second update: Tea Party organizers respond directly to Mr. Olbermann
Thursday, February 18, 2010
An open letter to Bob Barr
When you changed your allegiance from Republican to Libertarian so you could run for President, many Libertarians- most definitely including myself- were appalled; I knew you as a religious bigot and the architect of almost everything wrong with the modern Republican party, one of the reasons I left after thirty years as a loyal Republican. Knowing this, you said a lot of reassuring things, recanting your entire political life. If I had believed you, I would today feel betrayed.
In your latest post on his blog, The Barr Code, you ridicule the Air Force Academy's decision to allow volunteers to erect a worship circle for Pagan cadets, and Pagan servicemen nearby. You say, "But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion (another part of the definition of “pagan”), and who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle."
Let me ask you, Bob; would you have followed Air Force veteran Douglas Wilkey? How about Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart? How about Purple Heart and Bronze Star holder Abraham Kooiman? Or fellow Purple Heart and Bronze Star holder Stephen P. Snowberger III?
You say that a Pagan "has little or no religion..."... and yet, these Pagans- and many, many more, currently serving and heroically fallen- had enough faith in something larger than themselves to place their bodies between their country and harm's way- something you chose not to do yourself. And despite their willing sacrifice, you would deny them the solace of their faith while they serve. Take another look at PFC Kooiman's grave; notice that there's a before and after picture- when he died, he was denied the symbol of his faith on his tombstone by you and other religious bigots in power. It took the Supreme Court to force this simple last gift of dignity to our fallen heroes.
Bob, in your life you have left the Democratic party and the Republican party. If you truly have any belief in Libertarian ideals and the Libertarian party, I ask for the good of the party and the good of the country that you leave this party, too; for as long as you are the standard bearer, it will neither receive nor deserve the votes of anyone who believes in liberty or the Constitution.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Having it both ways
The last few years we've been getting warnings that Global Warming is reducing snowfall, which will be catastrophic for our economy...
Now we're told that the heavy snows that have paralyzed both Europe and the US are the result of Global warming- "these ‘snowpocalypses’ that have been going through DC and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming."
Sound familiar? Al Gore et al predicted that 2006 would be a disastrous year for hurricanes- 15 named storms, 9 or 10 being hurricane strength, 3 or 4 or those being major. What happened in 2006? Number of named storms: 9. Number of category 4 or 5: 0. (By the way, another nil hurricane season ended a couple months ago) Then, in April 2007, a new study came out: Global warming may sap hurricanes
Of course, it's not Global Warming anymore, it's Climate Change, I'm told. The Global Warming cause weather to become more extreme, both ways. Hmm... doesn't seem to click with NOAA's hurricane statistics; they show the period from 1900-1950 to be almost twice as bad as 1950-now: number of major storms, 1900-1950: 42; number of major storms 1950-2000: 28. By the way, the 1900 Galveston Texas hurricane was just a little bit more severe than Katrina, killing 12,000 people.
But never mind all that; the science is exact: CO2 causes Global Warming. Unless, of course, Global Warming causes the CO2, which the actual data seems to show , and Al Gore admits. But then, he has a scientific explanation: that was in the past.
This is all beginning to sound like Christian Apologetics... Global Warming causes droughts, and it causes increased precipitation... Global Warming causes more frequent, more violent hurricanes, and it reduces their numbers and intensity... it causes blizzards and bare mountains... it causes, and is caused by, CO2... Falsifiability? Know ye that all things work for the greater glory of the IPCC... (except for the parts about the melting glaciers , which were based on a student paper that used a skiing magazine as source material and a WWF letter, or the parts about crops being cut in half in Africa in only ten years, which were never peer reviewed, or obvious mistakes like claiming that half of Holland is below sea level.)
We keep telling creationists that the problem with their theory is that it can't be used; since we have no way of knowing the nature of or timing of miracles, we can't use creation theory to predict experimental results. Global Warming theories, however, do predict results- mutually exclusive ones. But they have a better answer for this knock than the creationists: their theories predict that weather will become unpredictable; therefore, by getting it wrong they are actually fulfilling their predictions!
Coming soon, but not next, an in-depth look at the controversies of the last couple of years without my tongue in my cheek.
Now we're told that the heavy snows that have paralyzed both Europe and the US are the result of Global warming- "these ‘snowpocalypses’ that have been going through DC and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming."
Sound familiar? Al Gore et al predicted that 2006 would be a disastrous year for hurricanes- 15 named storms, 9 or 10 being hurricane strength, 3 or 4 or those being major. What happened in 2006? Number of named storms: 9. Number of category 4 or 5: 0. (By the way, another nil hurricane season ended a couple months ago) Then, in April 2007, a new study came out: Global warming may sap hurricanes
Of course, it's not Global Warming anymore, it's Climate Change, I'm told. The Global Warming cause weather to become more extreme, both ways. Hmm... doesn't seem to click with NOAA's hurricane statistics; they show the period from 1900-1950 to be almost twice as bad as 1950-now: number of major storms, 1900-1950: 42; number of major storms 1950-2000: 28. By the way, the 1900 Galveston Texas hurricane was just a little bit more severe than Katrina, killing 12,000 people.
But never mind all that; the science is exact: CO2 causes Global Warming. Unless, of course, Global Warming causes the CO2, which the actual data seems to show , and Al Gore admits. But then, he has a scientific explanation: that was in the past.
This is all beginning to sound like Christian Apologetics... Global Warming causes droughts, and it causes increased precipitation... Global Warming causes more frequent, more violent hurricanes, and it reduces their numbers and intensity... it causes blizzards and bare mountains... it causes, and is caused by, CO2... Falsifiability? Know ye that all things work for the greater glory of the IPCC... (except for the parts about the melting glaciers , which were based on a student paper that used a skiing magazine as source material and a WWF letter, or the parts about crops being cut in half in Africa in only ten years, which were never peer reviewed, or obvious mistakes like claiming that half of Holland is below sea level.)
We keep telling creationists that the problem with their theory is that it can't be used; since we have no way of knowing the nature of or timing of miracles, we can't use creation theory to predict experimental results. Global Warming theories, however, do predict results- mutually exclusive ones. But they have a better answer for this knock than the creationists: their theories predict that weather will become unpredictable; therefore, by getting it wrong they are actually fulfilling their predictions!
Coming soon, but not next, an in-depth look at the controversies of the last couple of years without my tongue in my cheek.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
A philosophical question...
inspired by the morning commute. Everyone in the northeast knows what this morning's drive to work was like- as we used to say when we were kids, H. R. Muck&stuff. 99% of the commuters were being careful and responsible, but in a city of a million people, 1% is a lot of troublemakers.
Driving my beloved to work, on the way up we- and almost everybody else- were doing about 30 in a 45, which was right at the limit of sanity... but zooming along in the left lane was a Lexus SUV, doing at least 50, spraying the rest of us with brown, salty slush. Now, I'm not a road-rage kind of guy, but I genuinely regretted that I was too busy driving and using the windshield washer to spare a hand flipping the bird. Then, on the way home, the same thing happened again, with the perpetrator being a Cadillac Escalade. But coming up to a stop light, the Escalade slid in the intersection and brushed another vehicle that was stopped in the intersection patiently waiting for his chance to turn left... this other vehicle was a snow plow, and the blade opened up the side of the Escalade the length of the vehicle.
Nobody was hurt; the airbags of the Escalade didn't even go off- the only result was many thousands of dollars of damage done to the Escalade. (no damage was done to the plow blade) I laughed like a maniac. But then I was ashamed of my laughter. Which made me wonder...
Is it schadenfreude if the other whose misfortune you're enjoying is a dick? I mean, after all, one could argue that what he suffered was not misfortune, but well-earned consequences. Is it OK to enjoy brutal karma, or is the enjoyment unworthy irrespective of the cause of his suffering?
A further thought is that this question is related to another one: is a snarky comment still snarky if it's true? I've never resolved that one, either.
Driving my beloved to work, on the way up we- and almost everybody else- were doing about 30 in a 45, which was right at the limit of sanity... but zooming along in the left lane was a Lexus SUV, doing at least 50, spraying the rest of us with brown, salty slush. Now, I'm not a road-rage kind of guy, but I genuinely regretted that I was too busy driving and using the windshield washer to spare a hand flipping the bird. Then, on the way home, the same thing happened again, with the perpetrator being a Cadillac Escalade. But coming up to a stop light, the Escalade slid in the intersection and brushed another vehicle that was stopped in the intersection patiently waiting for his chance to turn left... this other vehicle was a snow plow, and the blade opened up the side of the Escalade the length of the vehicle.
Nobody was hurt; the airbags of the Escalade didn't even go off- the only result was many thousands of dollars of damage done to the Escalade. (no damage was done to the plow blade) I laughed like a maniac. But then I was ashamed of my laughter. Which made me wonder...
Is it schadenfreude if the other whose misfortune you're enjoying is a dick? I mean, after all, one could argue that what he suffered was not misfortune, but well-earned consequences. Is it OK to enjoy brutal karma, or is the enjoyment unworthy irrespective of the cause of his suffering?
A further thought is that this question is related to another one: is a snarky comment still snarky if it's true? I've never resolved that one, either.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Update to "Be here, now"
The banker caught on camera looking at girlie pics is keeping his job. After his international embarrassment, an internal investigation at the bank evidently decided he'd suffered enough, and anyway he was just surfing for porn; the pictures were an email attachment- and there is speculation he was set up as a practical joke. See news stories here and here
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Jobless recovery- or jobless economy?
It's a conundrum that seems to come up in every conversation that runs more than five minutes- we keep hearing about all the new jobs being created, but we all have friends who are unemployed, or maybe you're the one who is unemployed, and sometimes for a long time. What goes on? Is the government lying about the new job creation?
No. The problem is the term "new jobs"; when one hears of news jobs created, one envisions more people working- but what is happening is that for every job created, another one (at least) is lost. Permanently. Nowadays, when one loses a job, it often doesn't mean that you were laid off and later replaced; it means that the job- not just with that company, but the vocation itself- has disappeared, been rendered obsolete or unnecessary. It's no longer just the young or uneducated being laid off; now it's people in their 40s and 50s, with post-high school educations and long, productive careers whose jobs are disappearing. And there's little or nothing the administration can do about it, especially in the short term.
This assessment of the administration's impotence is not a critique of the Obama administration, or the new Democrat majority- this has been going on for a very long time. If you consider the term "new jobs" to mean "more people are working today than yesterday", then according to this article from Investors.com , there hasn't been a new job created in the US for eleven years. That span includes three presidents, and two changes of majority in Congress. And as near as I can estimate, while there had been genuine job growth before 1999, the rate of job growth had been less than the rate of population growth for at least ten years before that- and that's using the lower estimates of illegal immigration.
How has this elephant in the room gone unnoticed for so long? Partially because in the past, the jobs being eliminated were either obviously obsolete, or low-paid jobs. It's not news when the underclass has high unemployment, or when a manufacturer of buggy whips goes under. But the major reason the elephant has gone unnoticed is that he was hiding behind an economic boom, with increased profits and American made products enjoying competitive advantages worldwide.
Paradoxically, the same phenomenon has caused both the economic boom and the job losses: increased productivity. Not just increased productivity, but really, really increased productivity. And not just in automated factories as you'd imagine, but in every part of the economy. But if one man can do the work of two, then Mr. Two loses his job. That's good news for the stockholders who see more product for less payroll, and therefore higher profits, but it's bad news for Mr. Two- and it's only going to get worse, fast. Let me give you a few things to ponder.
Have you heard of 3-D printers? It's a computer printer that spits out not printed paper, but solid objects. If you have heard of them, you probably know them only as a new technology that has thrown industrial prototypers and modelers out of business, but they're about to be a whole lot more. Watch this Popular Mechanics video of Jay Leno making a part for his car with one... notice that this 3-D copier is capable of printing an entire machine, with moving parts, already assembled! More amazing details here . Yes, the 3-D printer is pricey, but that was last year- forever, in computer terms. Meet The Desktop Factory , $4,995.00. That's a drop in price from corporate investment to middleclass gadget in less than a year; the price may well drop yet another three-fold in a couple years as sales increase, and competitors enter the market. There are other 3-D printers already in use that make copies in metal or ceramic, and are capable of printing circuit boards. How long before they're cheap enough to be in a neighborhood "factory"? There is even one in development called a "cell jet"- like an inkjet, except instead of spraying ink to make a paper copy, it sprays living cells to make artificial organs; you could "print" a replacement heart valve instead of having to kill a pig to get one, for example.
What's that going to do to hundreds of industries? Have you ever had a tooth crowned, or a bridge made? How about instead of filling your mouth with goo to make a mold, sending it to a lab, getting a temporary crown, and coming back a week later to have it fitted, your dentist could scan your mouth before he starts, and by the time he's prepped your tooth, out pops the "printed" crown- and it's a perfect fit first time. How many dental labs full of well paid, highly trained professionals have just been eliminated- permanently? How about instead of shopping online and having the doodad shipped to you, you just download and print it? That's technically possible right now- how soon before it's cost competitive, considering the labor costs, taxes, marketing costs, and shipping costs involved in factories? How many jobs lost worldwide- no matter how cheap labor is, it's more expensive than robot labor. About to make a cynical comment about how we'll all get jobs at the 3-D printer factory? I kid you not; there is one company (at least) already developing a printer that can print more 3-D printers!
Nor is that the only technical advance threatening the structure of our economy. Since this country was founded, we've gone from one farmer being able to feed himself and 3-4 others to modern farmers who can feed themselves and 150-200 others... now there are pilot hydroponic farms that are totally automated. How soon before you just put fertilizer and electricity in one end, and packaged food ready for the supermarket shelf comes out the other end? How many jobs, from stoop labor to skilled processor positions have just been lost? There are other entrepreneurs dreaming of growing cotton in those automated farms, and attaching it to the already automated textile mills... sunlight and fertilizer in one end, ready to wear clothing out the other?
I've only mentioned two technologies; I'm sure you're aware of many others- and each feeds off of and reinforces yet more. We're talking of hundreds of thousands of jobs lost forever here- millions worldwide- just in the next decade or perhaps sooner, given the explosive growth of technology . Unemployment is sitting around 10% right now, and that doesn't count those who went back to school after being laid off and are not currently looking; I've seen estimates that if you include those who are in school because of layoffs (as opposed to kids entering college or tech schools for the first time), the real unemployment rate would be somewhere between 13-15%- and when they graduate, who's going to get the jobs available, a twenty something kid, or the middle aged parent who has to ask for a salary that will cover their mortgage and children? Especially when both employee and employer know the technology they just spent a fortune to learn is already obsolescent?
Fact is, we're already reaching a point where even going back to school won't help- there simply aren't enough productive jobs to go around. Soon, as productivity increases, a large plurality of the population will be "Mr. Two". It amazes me that people can get their undies in a bunch over climate change that may or may not occur in a few centuries, when we're heading for major social upheaval in a few decades- or sooner. We must develop a new social paradigm... how do you run an economy and a society when only three or four people out of ten are actually needed to produce the necessities of life for all? What do you do with all the people who are no longer needed at the farms and factories- or even retail outlets?
Science fiction writers saw this coming long ago- Mack Reynolds wrote of a future America practicing what he called "People's Capitalism"- he saw it coming about when during an economic crisis, corporations were so broke they couldn't pay their taxes, so the government accepted payments in stock rather than cash; when the crisis was over, and profits started pouring in to the government, it was paid out to the citizens in a sort of negative income tax, allowing people to live without the jobs that no longer existed. Sort of like Alaska and the oil tax profits. Is that the best path? Who knows- there are plenty of problems with the concept; that was the basis of many of his stories. But we need to start working on the problem today, because it's coming a Hell of a lot faster than global Warming is.
No. The problem is the term "new jobs"; when one hears of news jobs created, one envisions more people working- but what is happening is that for every job created, another one (at least) is lost. Permanently. Nowadays, when one loses a job, it often doesn't mean that you were laid off and later replaced; it means that the job- not just with that company, but the vocation itself- has disappeared, been rendered obsolete or unnecessary. It's no longer just the young or uneducated being laid off; now it's people in their 40s and 50s, with post-high school educations and long, productive careers whose jobs are disappearing. And there's little or nothing the administration can do about it, especially in the short term.
This assessment of the administration's impotence is not a critique of the Obama administration, or the new Democrat majority- this has been going on for a very long time. If you consider the term "new jobs" to mean "more people are working today than yesterday", then according to this article from Investors.com , there hasn't been a new job created in the US for eleven years. That span includes three presidents, and two changes of majority in Congress. And as near as I can estimate, while there had been genuine job growth before 1999, the rate of job growth had been less than the rate of population growth for at least ten years before that- and that's using the lower estimates of illegal immigration.
How has this elephant in the room gone unnoticed for so long? Partially because in the past, the jobs being eliminated were either obviously obsolete, or low-paid jobs. It's not news when the underclass has high unemployment, or when a manufacturer of buggy whips goes under. But the major reason the elephant has gone unnoticed is that he was hiding behind an economic boom, with increased profits and American made products enjoying competitive advantages worldwide.
Paradoxically, the same phenomenon has caused both the economic boom and the job losses: increased productivity. Not just increased productivity, but really, really increased productivity. And not just in automated factories as you'd imagine, but in every part of the economy. But if one man can do the work of two, then Mr. Two loses his job. That's good news for the stockholders who see more product for less payroll, and therefore higher profits, but it's bad news for Mr. Two- and it's only going to get worse, fast. Let me give you a few things to ponder.
Have you heard of 3-D printers? It's a computer printer that spits out not printed paper, but solid objects. If you have heard of them, you probably know them only as a new technology that has thrown industrial prototypers and modelers out of business, but they're about to be a whole lot more. Watch this Popular Mechanics video of Jay Leno making a part for his car with one... notice that this 3-D copier is capable of printing an entire machine, with moving parts, already assembled! More amazing details here . Yes, the 3-D printer is pricey, but that was last year- forever, in computer terms. Meet The Desktop Factory , $4,995.00. That's a drop in price from corporate investment to middleclass gadget in less than a year; the price may well drop yet another three-fold in a couple years as sales increase, and competitors enter the market. There are other 3-D printers already in use that make copies in metal or ceramic, and are capable of printing circuit boards. How long before they're cheap enough to be in a neighborhood "factory"? There is even one in development called a "cell jet"- like an inkjet, except instead of spraying ink to make a paper copy, it sprays living cells to make artificial organs; you could "print" a replacement heart valve instead of having to kill a pig to get one, for example.
What's that going to do to hundreds of industries? Have you ever had a tooth crowned, or a bridge made? How about instead of filling your mouth with goo to make a mold, sending it to a lab, getting a temporary crown, and coming back a week later to have it fitted, your dentist could scan your mouth before he starts, and by the time he's prepped your tooth, out pops the "printed" crown- and it's a perfect fit first time. How many dental labs full of well paid, highly trained professionals have just been eliminated- permanently? How about instead of shopping online and having the doodad shipped to you, you just download and print it? That's technically possible right now- how soon before it's cost competitive, considering the labor costs, taxes, marketing costs, and shipping costs involved in factories? How many jobs lost worldwide- no matter how cheap labor is, it's more expensive than robot labor. About to make a cynical comment about how we'll all get jobs at the 3-D printer factory? I kid you not; there is one company (at least) already developing a printer that can print more 3-D printers!
Nor is that the only technical advance threatening the structure of our economy. Since this country was founded, we've gone from one farmer being able to feed himself and 3-4 others to modern farmers who can feed themselves and 150-200 others... now there are pilot hydroponic farms that are totally automated. How soon before you just put fertilizer and electricity in one end, and packaged food ready for the supermarket shelf comes out the other end? How many jobs, from stoop labor to skilled processor positions have just been lost? There are other entrepreneurs dreaming of growing cotton in those automated farms, and attaching it to the already automated textile mills... sunlight and fertilizer in one end, ready to wear clothing out the other?
I've only mentioned two technologies; I'm sure you're aware of many others- and each feeds off of and reinforces yet more. We're talking of hundreds of thousands of jobs lost forever here- millions worldwide- just in the next decade or perhaps sooner, given the explosive growth of technology . Unemployment is sitting around 10% right now, and that doesn't count those who went back to school after being laid off and are not currently looking; I've seen estimates that if you include those who are in school because of layoffs (as opposed to kids entering college or tech schools for the first time), the real unemployment rate would be somewhere between 13-15%- and when they graduate, who's going to get the jobs available, a twenty something kid, or the middle aged parent who has to ask for a salary that will cover their mortgage and children? Especially when both employee and employer know the technology they just spent a fortune to learn is already obsolescent?
Fact is, we're already reaching a point where even going back to school won't help- there simply aren't enough productive jobs to go around. Soon, as productivity increases, a large plurality of the population will be "Mr. Two". It amazes me that people can get their undies in a bunch over climate change that may or may not occur in a few centuries, when we're heading for major social upheaval in a few decades- or sooner. We must develop a new social paradigm... how do you run an economy and a society when only three or four people out of ten are actually needed to produce the necessities of life for all? What do you do with all the people who are no longer needed at the farms and factories- or even retail outlets?
Science fiction writers saw this coming long ago- Mack Reynolds wrote of a future America practicing what he called "People's Capitalism"- he saw it coming about when during an economic crisis, corporations were so broke they couldn't pay their taxes, so the government accepted payments in stock rather than cash; when the crisis was over, and profits started pouring in to the government, it was paid out to the citizens in a sort of negative income tax, allowing people to live without the jobs that no longer existed. Sort of like Alaska and the oil tax profits. Is that the best path? Who knows- there are plenty of problems with the concept; that was the basis of many of his stories. But we need to start working on the problem today, because it's coming a Hell of a lot faster than global Warming is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)