Car manufacturers had a problem in the 1950's. A car can last for twenty years or more, how can they get people to buy a car more often? Well, Brook Stevens came up with a solution and called it planned obsolescence. To this day, this is a rather maligned concept to those who don't actively employ it.
Now, this isn't the idea that things simply fall apart after a given of time. Rather, you plan to make things look and feel old. It's a design issue. Each year you make a thing incrementally smaller, bigger, or different in evolution. The idea isn't to force people to give up their things, but to make it instantly recognisable when the thing came out. That way, the same features are both a selling point when it's new and a reason to get a new thing when it's old.
In the 1950's, it was the car fins. Today, it's most obvious in Apple Products where new versions come out every year or so with an incremental change in features and size. The original concept held that the incremental change is the primary driver in new purchases, but the fact that the model and year is immediately visible positively incentivize the decision to upgrade and penalizes the decision to use out of date models just because of the way we interact with one another.
The thing everyone thinks of, the redesign of things to wear out faster, is a poor substitute pursued by industries that cannot effectively vary the look of their product. Originally seen in things like light bulbs, this methodology cannibalizes their own sales if anyone breaks ranks and maintain quality in spite of their competition.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Car Communication
Road Rage is a thing. Walking Rage isn't. Why? People can communicate non-verbally when walking much better than they can through cars. Today, for example, I wound up cutting off a bus since the bus just let someone off at a sometimes bus stop and then had to immediately make a left at a light. This involved getting over two lanes. I was just trying to make a left, and assumed that the bus was only going to pull out into either of the straight lanes.
I felt like a dumb ass. I wish there was a "sorry" or an "I'm a dumb ass" button I could press that would communicate my actual feelings. But, I didn't so I'm pretty sure that I came off like a raging dick who didn't care that I had essentially lept into the bus' path and thereby forcing it to wait through a red light.
I find that comes up pretty often. Someone does something stupid or aggressive when driving and I kind of assume that they're just being a dick about it. I think that a few of them weren't trying to be dicks about it, much like I didn't intend to cut off a bus. The problem is that jerks exist. I want to react appropriately, but when I can't tell the difference because they can't tell me.
When walking and someone blunders, they look like they are embarrassed or sorry about it. Or they don't, and then I know they are a dick. I wish there was something, anything, that could mimic that interaction when strapped into the multi-ton frame that is a car.
I felt like a dumb ass. I wish there was a "sorry" or an "I'm a dumb ass" button I could press that would communicate my actual feelings. But, I didn't so I'm pretty sure that I came off like a raging dick who didn't care that I had essentially lept into the bus' path and thereby forcing it to wait through a red light.
I find that comes up pretty often. Someone does something stupid or aggressive when driving and I kind of assume that they're just being a dick about it. I think that a few of them weren't trying to be dicks about it, much like I didn't intend to cut off a bus. The problem is that jerks exist. I want to react appropriately, but when I can't tell the difference because they can't tell me.
When walking and someone blunders, they look like they are embarrassed or sorry about it. Or they don't, and then I know they are a dick. I wish there was something, anything, that could mimic that interaction when strapped into the multi-ton frame that is a car.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
A talk about housing
I believe that we are paying far too much attention to concepts of class in housing needs. There are many discussions about affordable housing, sustainable housing, and transit oriented housing. But one thing I read a while ago that really stuck with me. It was talking about the fact that the vast majority of Americans who are wealthy enough to consider moving end up with a very weak sense of place. How is this not a bigger issue?
Don't get me wrong, the discussions we are having about housing are important. Many people who move to those areas of the United States where they can take home more pay for the same job find housing costs so high in those areas that they wind up little better than they were before, so new ideas to help establish affordable housing without heavy handed government action like price controls would be most welcome. Many people who do not live in cities quickly find that their choices in how to get around is cars and also cars, suburbs were created partially to provide a choice that is different from either farm or major city but suburbs themselves also require more choice for those who are young, poor, or suffering from mechanical problem. Sustainability can be rather important, but I am sure that there are better folks than I to belabor that point. My point is that there is something that we aren't talking about, and that is that place sort of thing.
Many people when they reach the age where they want to move out of their parent's house find that there is nothing they can possibly afford in the neighborhood they grew up. This tends to be because the houses are too big, too expensive, or too far from work or school. This is simply because the needs and resources of a single person change significantly over time. A young man or woman moving out on their own needs little more space than a dorm room with an attached bathroom and kitchenette. They don't need a free standing house. A young man or woman moving out on their own for the first time also tends to be working in entry level positions, living off student loans, or working a couple of part time jobs. This doesn't lend itself to large housing bills. A couple of building that offer housing like this in a low rise higher density format close to the center of commercial activity and education in the area. These buildings lend themselves to mass transit options and mixed use with some commercial space in the same building, and with some early planning it should be easier to design it with sustainability in mind than single family housing units for a similar number of people.
As that person ages their wants and resources changes. In ten years or so that person is entering the main element of his or her earning potential and has been accumulating stuff. That first apartment would tend to be too small and possibly too close to the noise and bustle nightlife and commercial activity. The pattern doesn't need to be all that different or a lower density option like town homes, just a bigger space that doesn't share space with louder uses a little ways farther from the commercial heart of the community. Transit is less important because it is far more likely that the individual in question would be capable of supporting a car, but again an integration with mass transit is an easy win for the design of the community allowing people the choice of car rather than assuming it. If the individual remains a working professional this may be the last kind of housing that they need.
Many people like the single family home, and once they start having children they strongly value the privacy, land ownership, quiet, and control that the single family homes offer relative to other housing options. Schools, also, are essential to this decision. While that first house is concerned with post-secondary education, it really isn't all that important to have a strong local school system, the second house has a stronger emphasis on the local school system but primarily in so far as it relates to how it inflates or depresses the price. This stage is where schools become important, maybe even the factor. This is the largest, most expensive, and least predicated on mass transit options that the housing option is going get. The existing suburban model suits this set of wants rather effectively.
Yet, all those things the large floor space, the yard, the high quality schools, and the distance that creates the quiet and control become liabilities as this person ages. You never stop paying for the size of the house even after you pay off the loan, property taxes rarely drop especially in areas with a well funded school system. In order be sure of silence you need a large block of low density use and that normally is same use, so while noise and strangers are kept at arms length so are things like medical care and low density makes it hard or impossible for mass transit to substitute for a car if a person suffers a mechanical failure or a health problem that makes the car unfeasible. As children leave it can make a great deal of sense to move into a smaller, more dense setting especially if the area is designed for the elderly. Housing dedicated to the elderly also has the ability to eliminate that school tax on a property, that's a huge proportion of local taxes and it's reasonably safe for a community to do this because it's incredibly unlikely that the elderly will put a burden on the school system.
All that being said, building this progression everywhere simply won't work. It is predicated on a number of assumption. First, is that there is a dense commercial core a main street or a regional mall, after all mass transit cannot be an option if it cannot put someone in easy walking distance of both employment and shopping so very low density suburbs and rural areas are unlikely to support the first home apartments. The second assumption is that the local character of the community wouldn't be altered by high density development, after all nothing breaks up small town charm quite like a small sky scraper sandwiched between historic buildings on a historic square. The third assumption is that the density is low enough to allow for single family homes at all, New York and San Francisco have progressions all their own. Anyone looking at their community needs to be very careful about development, because each one has something special and unique that needs to be nurtured and protected. After all, the health and future of a community depends upon those things that make it unique.
That being said, I think that it is a way to layer the market to better address questions about transit options and affordability. Too often, discussions about affordable housing feels like it breaks down into "where do we hide the poor people". That, I feel, is the wrong way to go about it. After all, everyone is poor, relatively speaking, when they are very young or very old. So, in providing housing for the young and old you are reducing competition for low cost housing and providing a geographic areas where lower income housing is considered acceptable. If this is infill development it creates a market for and a small area where transit can thrive. Connect that transit alternative to other, existing networks and you have a core of transit that can be expanded upon later should density increase in the future.
So, how do you include low-income high density housing with parking access in a way that preserves local flavor? I believe that the answer is to have a relatively small footprint on the overall property and the inclusion of public space. By replacing a large parking lot with a parking deck built around a transit spot with a green belt, a wooded area or parkland, is a very effective way to preserve a larger area by segregating a smaller interior area. This also counteracts the property value hit that higher density develop can deal to existing low density property. Including space earmarked for something that highlights or celebrates the unique part of the community such as a museum, local gallery, or community center is a good choice for an apartment for young professionals. A theater, outdoor concert space, a movie screen, or other artistic or entertainment venue is a good addition to the general commercial space because they can readily generate walking traffic between parking, the art/entertainment, and the green space. While segregating incompatible uses and diverse densities is necessary, it is also important to ensure that people have reason to interact and exist in the same public space. The goal isn't to create a new community, but provide for choice and diversity in an existing one. Maximizing exposure for unique local assets like artists, historical artifacts and structures, and community organizations doesn't hurt either.
This probably should be expanded into a well researched book or maybe a thesis, but I would rather focus on the quality of a community and building up the chance for people to stay at home when they move away than trying to reduce everyone to a stereotype based on income levels. There are something like 10,000 localities in the United States, each one is unique and few of them provide the opportunity to find housing choices well tailored to their needs at each stage of life. While people are muddling for solution to affordable housing or transit options as though they are separate issues, I would argue that both are symptomatic of a weak theory for what people need out of homes.
Don't get me wrong, the discussions we are having about housing are important. Many people who move to those areas of the United States where they can take home more pay for the same job find housing costs so high in those areas that they wind up little better than they were before, so new ideas to help establish affordable housing without heavy handed government action like price controls would be most welcome. Many people who do not live in cities quickly find that their choices in how to get around is cars and also cars, suburbs were created partially to provide a choice that is different from either farm or major city but suburbs themselves also require more choice for those who are young, poor, or suffering from mechanical problem. Sustainability can be rather important, but I am sure that there are better folks than I to belabor that point. My point is that there is something that we aren't talking about, and that is that place sort of thing.
Many people when they reach the age where they want to move out of their parent's house find that there is nothing they can possibly afford in the neighborhood they grew up. This tends to be because the houses are too big, too expensive, or too far from work or school. This is simply because the needs and resources of a single person change significantly over time. A young man or woman moving out on their own needs little more space than a dorm room with an attached bathroom and kitchenette. They don't need a free standing house. A young man or woman moving out on their own for the first time also tends to be working in entry level positions, living off student loans, or working a couple of part time jobs. This doesn't lend itself to large housing bills. A couple of building that offer housing like this in a low rise higher density format close to the center of commercial activity and education in the area. These buildings lend themselves to mass transit options and mixed use with some commercial space in the same building, and with some early planning it should be easier to design it with sustainability in mind than single family housing units for a similar number of people.
As that person ages their wants and resources changes. In ten years or so that person is entering the main element of his or her earning potential and has been accumulating stuff. That first apartment would tend to be too small and possibly too close to the noise and bustle nightlife and commercial activity. The pattern doesn't need to be all that different or a lower density option like town homes, just a bigger space that doesn't share space with louder uses a little ways farther from the commercial heart of the community. Transit is less important because it is far more likely that the individual in question would be capable of supporting a car, but again an integration with mass transit is an easy win for the design of the community allowing people the choice of car rather than assuming it. If the individual remains a working professional this may be the last kind of housing that they need.
Many people like the single family home, and once they start having children they strongly value the privacy, land ownership, quiet, and control that the single family homes offer relative to other housing options. Schools, also, are essential to this decision. While that first house is concerned with post-secondary education, it really isn't all that important to have a strong local school system, the second house has a stronger emphasis on the local school system but primarily in so far as it relates to how it inflates or depresses the price. This stage is where schools become important, maybe even the factor. This is the largest, most expensive, and least predicated on mass transit options that the housing option is going get. The existing suburban model suits this set of wants rather effectively.
Yet, all those things the large floor space, the yard, the high quality schools, and the distance that creates the quiet and control become liabilities as this person ages. You never stop paying for the size of the house even after you pay off the loan, property taxes rarely drop especially in areas with a well funded school system. In order be sure of silence you need a large block of low density use and that normally is same use, so while noise and strangers are kept at arms length so are things like medical care and low density makes it hard or impossible for mass transit to substitute for a car if a person suffers a mechanical failure or a health problem that makes the car unfeasible. As children leave it can make a great deal of sense to move into a smaller, more dense setting especially if the area is designed for the elderly. Housing dedicated to the elderly also has the ability to eliminate that school tax on a property, that's a huge proportion of local taxes and it's reasonably safe for a community to do this because it's incredibly unlikely that the elderly will put a burden on the school system.
All that being said, building this progression everywhere simply won't work. It is predicated on a number of assumption. First, is that there is a dense commercial core a main street or a regional mall, after all mass transit cannot be an option if it cannot put someone in easy walking distance of both employment and shopping so very low density suburbs and rural areas are unlikely to support the first home apartments. The second assumption is that the local character of the community wouldn't be altered by high density development, after all nothing breaks up small town charm quite like a small sky scraper sandwiched between historic buildings on a historic square. The third assumption is that the density is low enough to allow for single family homes at all, New York and San Francisco have progressions all their own. Anyone looking at their community needs to be very careful about development, because each one has something special and unique that needs to be nurtured and protected. After all, the health and future of a community depends upon those things that make it unique.
That being said, I think that it is a way to layer the market to better address questions about transit options and affordability. Too often, discussions about affordable housing feels like it breaks down into "where do we hide the poor people". That, I feel, is the wrong way to go about it. After all, everyone is poor, relatively speaking, when they are very young or very old. So, in providing housing for the young and old you are reducing competition for low cost housing and providing a geographic areas where lower income housing is considered acceptable. If this is infill development it creates a market for and a small area where transit can thrive. Connect that transit alternative to other, existing networks and you have a core of transit that can be expanded upon later should density increase in the future.
So, how do you include low-income high density housing with parking access in a way that preserves local flavor? I believe that the answer is to have a relatively small footprint on the overall property and the inclusion of public space. By replacing a large parking lot with a parking deck built around a transit spot with a green belt, a wooded area or parkland, is a very effective way to preserve a larger area by segregating a smaller interior area. This also counteracts the property value hit that higher density develop can deal to existing low density property. Including space earmarked for something that highlights or celebrates the unique part of the community such as a museum, local gallery, or community center is a good choice for an apartment for young professionals. A theater, outdoor concert space, a movie screen, or other artistic or entertainment venue is a good addition to the general commercial space because they can readily generate walking traffic between parking, the art/entertainment, and the green space. While segregating incompatible uses and diverse densities is necessary, it is also important to ensure that people have reason to interact and exist in the same public space. The goal isn't to create a new community, but provide for choice and diversity in an existing one. Maximizing exposure for unique local assets like artists, historical artifacts and structures, and community organizations doesn't hurt either.
This probably should be expanded into a well researched book or maybe a thesis, but I would rather focus on the quality of a community and building up the chance for people to stay at home when they move away than trying to reduce everyone to a stereotype based on income levels. There are something like 10,000 localities in the United States, each one is unique and few of them provide the opportunity to find housing choices well tailored to their needs at each stage of life. While people are muddling for solution to affordable housing or transit options as though they are separate issues, I would argue that both are symptomatic of a weak theory for what people need out of homes.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Legitimacy is Everything.
In politics, at least.
After all, the powers of government, as I have stated previously, are inherently limited. The power of the government is limited to the repressive power of the security apparatus and it's power to tax. The rest is all predicated on assistance, or at least a lack of opposition, on the part of the general populous.
Think about it. The in order to stop someone from doing something the only real choices are rendering it illegal thus sanctioning the use of force against those who engage in such behavior and taxing it to hell and back thus sanctioning the use of force against those who engage in such behavior without paying up first. To make someone do something the choices are functionally identical, you either pay people for doing it or you sanction the use of force against against those who fail to do it.
These are remarkably ham handed tools.
So, how does the government, restricted to these things, manage to exist. The amount of force that the government can bring to bear is a tiny fraction of the total force available to the people in general. I have to say that the answer is legitimacy.
Legitimacy is the belief that the rule of the government is right, just, or otherwise correct.
In the United States today the government pulls most of it's legitimate authority from the concept that it represents and is selected by the people and that law is transcendant and equally applicable.
Legitimacy of Kingdoms tends to come from the idea that the king is a powerful war leader capable of ensuring safety where there is otherwise none, that the authority of kings is annointed by religious authority, and that men surrender their natural powers to the office as part of the natural order of things.
Communist Dictatorships hinge on putting the power of the lower classes in trust, that people should not resist the will of the workers as represented by the government and that the government functions to preserve equality.
Military Dictatorships tend to be simpler in theory that the government exists to maintain security otherwise provide for those who provide security, and that resistance to the government is essentially an act of war because it damages the ability of the military to provide security.
All these governments operate differently. They all require that people accept the principles behind their kind of legitimacy as valid and at least do not actively oppose the functioning of government. It's strange how a population can accept multiple theories of legitimacy and justification for rule in a relatively short period of time with only minor things that deal with other elements.
We could probably use research into the mechanisms for legitimacy. Why do these concepts exist? Why are we predisposed to accepting the rule of others? I'm kind of afraid that if we knew those answers then they would be used against me, though.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Why I am not Progressive
In order to understand, I'll have to define terms. Progressivism is a political ideology that was originally developed to reform political and social movemens in response to the modernization of the late 1800's. This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about modern Progressivism, which really isn't all that different, only applying to current issues instead of being a reaction to industrialization, urbanization, and the big changes that we faced when growing into a world power.
It's not that I oppose a lot of the touchstone issues of modern progressives. I believe that same sex couples should have the same legal rights and privledges as standard marriages. I believe that environmental conservation is important. Social Justice issues matter deeply to me. Change in these things are ultimately beneficial and I would argue inevitable. The same sex marriage issue is more an issue of the term "marriage" than anything else, redefining all laws pertaining to marriage as laws referring to civil unions would remove any reasonable opposition to that sort of thing.
There are some things that I do disagree with. My big one is extensive unionization. It's not that I don't like the idea of unions, but I am not particularly fond with what they are. Unions in skilled jobs are nothing more the medeval trade guilds in a more modern form. Even unions in the unskilled jobs that need the collective barganing to ensure that the employee's concerns are heard can kill companies when they are too powerful relative to management or are unnecesarily adversaral. Don't believe me ask Eastern Air Lines where continued labor unrest in conjunction with tough competition led to the liquidation of the entire company (and more than twenty thousand jobs) in a matter of a couple of years. Yes, companies have an obligation to their employees, but they also have obligations to the shareholders and customers. What's best for the employees needs to be weighed against what's good for everyone else. The same is true when considering the position of consumers and the shareholders. I don't believe that political power should be used to support any one of those groups at the expense of any others.
Still, even with my disagreements about unionism, universal health care, fixed rent housing, gun control, environmentalism, and the like that doesn't define my opposition to progressivism. I oppose the methodology more than anything else. The government does a lot well, but it simply does not replace other things.
The government cannot force social change. The tools of the government are repression (violence, jail time) and taxation. The government punishing people for thinking "bad" thing and rewarding them for doing "good" things is always a disaster. The fact that the government can do such a thing is bad thing. I don't care how good the change is. I don't care how much better the world can be if the change is made. The fact of the matter is that the power to define "good" and "bad" is a power that I don't trust for myself, much less anyone else. And I shudder to think what would happen if someone would decide that something that is a fundimental part of my world view is "bad".
Change on things like same sex marriage, reproductive rights, abolition of the death penalty, and immigration reform has to happen in our "marketplace of ideas" first, and follow in law only when the issue is largely settled. People have to mostly agree, or there will be horrible problems. How are those positions changed? Well, the debate we have in daily life makes those changes happen.
It's not that I oppose a lot of the touchstone issues of modern progressives. I believe that same sex couples should have the same legal rights and privledges as standard marriages. I believe that environmental conservation is important. Social Justice issues matter deeply to me. Change in these things are ultimately beneficial and I would argue inevitable. The same sex marriage issue is more an issue of the term "marriage" than anything else, redefining all laws pertaining to marriage as laws referring to civil unions would remove any reasonable opposition to that sort of thing.
There are some things that I do disagree with. My big one is extensive unionization. It's not that I don't like the idea of unions, but I am not particularly fond with what they are. Unions in skilled jobs are nothing more the medeval trade guilds in a more modern form. Even unions in the unskilled jobs that need the collective barganing to ensure that the employee's concerns are heard can kill companies when they are too powerful relative to management or are unnecesarily adversaral. Don't believe me ask Eastern Air Lines where continued labor unrest in conjunction with tough competition led to the liquidation of the entire company (and more than twenty thousand jobs) in a matter of a couple of years. Yes, companies have an obligation to their employees, but they also have obligations to the shareholders and customers. What's best for the employees needs to be weighed against what's good for everyone else. The same is true when considering the position of consumers and the shareholders. I don't believe that political power should be used to support any one of those groups at the expense of any others.
Still, even with my disagreements about unionism, universal health care, fixed rent housing, gun control, environmentalism, and the like that doesn't define my opposition to progressivism. I oppose the methodology more than anything else. The government does a lot well, but it simply does not replace other things.
The government cannot force social change. The tools of the government are repression (violence, jail time) and taxation. The government punishing people for thinking "bad" thing and rewarding them for doing "good" things is always a disaster. The fact that the government can do such a thing is bad thing. I don't care how good the change is. I don't care how much better the world can be if the change is made. The fact of the matter is that the power to define "good" and "bad" is a power that I don't trust for myself, much less anyone else. And I shudder to think what would happen if someone would decide that something that is a fundimental part of my world view is "bad".
Change on things like same sex marriage, reproductive rights, abolition of the death penalty, and immigration reform has to happen in our "marketplace of ideas" first, and follow in law only when the issue is largely settled. People have to mostly agree, or there will be horrible problems. How are those positions changed? Well, the debate we have in daily life makes those changes happen.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Fight your debt.
Recently, banks ended up paying $26 billion because they didn't follow the law, a massive class action lawsuit was successful in collecting some money. Despite all of that, they still haven't fixed it. That's right, after paying $26 billion because they were illegally foreclosing, they are still doing it. So, if you find yourself in trouble, fight it. It's never a good idea to try game the system, debt is debt and it's better for everyone if it's paid off but the banks kept poor records and often flouted the law to the point where it's an excellent idea to make that matter by fighting the bank at every step.
It got this bad because no one called them on it. Because it didn't matter for decades, they stopped bothering. That is a huge problem, and it's one of the ones that led to the problems that collapsed the real estate market.
The same thing is happening in credit card debt there are factual flaws in most records that lead to credit card collections suits. If they are trying to collect more than you think you owe, fight it in court. Ask for proof, since that debt can be thrown out entirely if they can't prove that you own it. Thanks for poor record keeping, sometimes they can't.
I'm not saying to do something stupid like assuming that a bank or credit card company won't keep track or will willingly break the law. These companies aren't stupid, and they aren't evil. These things happen because they are trying to keep track of altogether too much with poorly paid people who are improperly trained.
I am saying that you should protect yourself from problems. Make them spell out what exactly what they need from you, and establish both that you are responsible for the debt that they own. Who knows, you could get lucky. But the important bit is keeping folks honest. Our economy, and capitalism in general, only works when the rules are enforced by everyone.
It got this bad because no one called them on it. Because it didn't matter for decades, they stopped bothering. That is a huge problem, and it's one of the ones that led to the problems that collapsed the real estate market.
The same thing is happening in credit card debt there are factual flaws in most records that lead to credit card collections suits. If they are trying to collect more than you think you owe, fight it in court. Ask for proof, since that debt can be thrown out entirely if they can't prove that you own it. Thanks for poor record keeping, sometimes they can't.
I'm not saying to do something stupid like assuming that a bank or credit card company won't keep track or will willingly break the law. These companies aren't stupid, and they aren't evil. These things happen because they are trying to keep track of altogether too much with poorly paid people who are improperly trained.
I am saying that you should protect yourself from problems. Make them spell out what exactly what they need from you, and establish both that you are responsible for the debt that they own. Who knows, you could get lucky. But the important bit is keeping folks honest. Our economy, and capitalism in general, only works when the rules are enforced by everyone.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
My take on Gun Control
There's been more than a little discusion on this topic since the most recent mass shooting in Colorado. To be honest, I can't think of any gun control law that would have prevented it, or one that would prevent something similar from happening in the future. Law doesn't work like that, people don't work like that.
I like the idea of licenses. I like the idea of a manditory safety class and a test over the laws people will be subject to. More knowledge and understanding amongst gun owners only benefits them. I like the idea of denying firearms to convincted felons, and I like there to be limitations on ownership for people who have pervasive and systemic problems with proper operation of firearms due to illness. These things are reasonable.
Gun control beyond that, well, I don't see how that could be effective. Law works when people agree with te law. Sin tax on bullet and firearms will only contribute to the already substantal grey and black markets for firearms, and might even give those who provide firearms illegally an excuse that otherwise upstanding individuals could idnetify with which is never something to be encouraged. Blanket bans on classes of firearm and kinds of accessories don't address the reasons for these events in the first place, and is something to be addressed as the secondary concern it should be. Gun crime correlates to the strength and quality of community more than gun control laws anyways. The way to cut crime is to help people help each other, not threatening broad swathes of the community with retribution for owning a certain kind of tool.
I like the idea of licenses. I like the idea of a manditory safety class and a test over the laws people will be subject to. More knowledge and understanding amongst gun owners only benefits them. I like the idea of denying firearms to convincted felons, and I like there to be limitations on ownership for people who have pervasive and systemic problems with proper operation of firearms due to illness. These things are reasonable.
Gun control beyond that, well, I don't see how that could be effective. Law works when people agree with te law. Sin tax on bullet and firearms will only contribute to the already substantal grey and black markets for firearms, and might even give those who provide firearms illegally an excuse that otherwise upstanding individuals could idnetify with which is never something to be encouraged. Blanket bans on classes of firearm and kinds of accessories don't address the reasons for these events in the first place, and is something to be addressed as the secondary concern it should be. Gun crime correlates to the strength and quality of community more than gun control laws anyways. The way to cut crime is to help people help each other, not threatening broad swathes of the community with retribution for owning a certain kind of tool.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Frogs in a field
So, we recently discovered a new species of frog native to, apparently, Yankee Stadium. So, yeah, go figure. However, I came to realize something: Cities aren't unnatural. Well, they are in the same way that things like prairie dog towns and beaver dams are unnatural. These things don't just happen, they are made to happen. It destroys one environment and creates a different one. The difference has, historically, been the lack of animals and plants (other than ourselves, our pets, and rats) that benefit from cities as a natural environment. This has been changing over time.
Between the falcons, coyote, foxes, sea gulls, pigeons, and other animals now beginning to thrive in urban and suburban settings there are robust wild communities beginning to grow in and around our modern cities in ways that we haven't seen before. And the important thing to note is that these things might not be as new as we seem to think, but simply more visible now that we aren't just shooting those wild animals we find.
I, personally, believe that we manage to keep our cities going for many years to come we will see more and more animals and plants unique and dependant upon our cities. I find the notion of cities being anti-nature to be, well, wrong. A different kind of of nature, to be sure. One that is currently less valuable from an ecological perspective, definitely. But that looks like it is changing, doesn't it? It looks to me like cities in the future could be as valuable to wildlife as forests are today, or not. The future will surprise us all, as it always does.
I'm just looking forward to the days that we incorporate living things into our architecture, where cities bustle with life in general and not just the business of humans living, and when the environmental impact of tearing buildings down are as important to consider as putting one up.
Between the falcons, coyote, foxes, sea gulls, pigeons, and other animals now beginning to thrive in urban and suburban settings there are robust wild communities beginning to grow in and around our modern cities in ways that we haven't seen before. And the important thing to note is that these things might not be as new as we seem to think, but simply more visible now that we aren't just shooting those wild animals we find.
I, personally, believe that we manage to keep our cities going for many years to come we will see more and more animals and plants unique and dependant upon our cities. I find the notion of cities being anti-nature to be, well, wrong. A different kind of of nature, to be sure. One that is currently less valuable from an ecological perspective, definitely. But that looks like it is changing, doesn't it? It looks to me like cities in the future could be as valuable to wildlife as forests are today, or not. The future will surprise us all, as it always does.
I'm just looking forward to the days that we incorporate living things into our architecture, where cities bustle with life in general and not just the business of humans living, and when the environmental impact of tearing buildings down are as important to consider as putting one up.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Naming things are hard
Names are crazy things. They are words that literally mean nothing until things exist. My name has no other meaning than me. The name of something that doesn't yet exist literally means nothing. Still, not all names are equal. There are a wide range of assumptions and such that go along with them. For example "Here is my friend, Michael" is very different from "Here is my friend, LaMichael".
Names are a good way to make a first impression, but it's also the sort of thing that strongly demonstrates the nature of words. Words mean what we make them mean, you name is the best example of this. A name refers to not just you, but all people who share that name. So, if your name is Mudd... well, your name is mud thinks to that guy helped John Wilkes Booth after he shot Lincoln. Still, you can use your reputation to change the very nature of your name.
No doubt names are a magnificent thing that no one ever seems to think about, but it doesn't change the fact that I suck when it comes to naming things myself. Help would be appreciated.
Names are a good way to make a first impression, but it's also the sort of thing that strongly demonstrates the nature of words. Words mean what we make them mean, you name is the best example of this. A name refers to not just you, but all people who share that name. So, if your name is Mudd... well, your name is mud thinks to that guy helped John Wilkes Booth after he shot Lincoln. Still, you can use your reputation to change the very nature of your name.
No doubt names are a magnificent thing that no one ever seems to think about, but it doesn't change the fact that I suck when it comes to naming things myself. Help would be appreciated.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Natural isn't free.
I was involved in a discussion a little while ago, in it I was discussing how expensive some things are even though they are natural. Yes, it happens when no one is looking. No, that doesn't mean it is "free". The statement "There is nothing that is free" is true, even if you can get things free of charge. Everything requires an expenditure of time and resources. This applies most obviously to physical stuff, after all it's made of stuff which cannot be used for other things for as long as it continues to exist. Still, I would argue that this is most true for those things that are not physical, those things that exist because we say so. These things require constant work to make them exist, everything from companies to nations to social clubs. I would argue especially social clubs.
Back to my original topic, I believe that discrimination is fucking expensive. Not merely expensive, fucking expensive. It requires that every time you choose to interact with folks you check, and a distinct response for each outcome. Yeah, it's a natural thing because we cannot have one general response for everything. Having the same response for police that you do for infants is a horrible idea. So, yeah, but when we start making up arbitrary things to check for... like Jewishness or race.. then that's just heaping more work on everyone. And for what? Not only do you have to build twice the necessary number of water fountains, but you also have to check to make sure that the right people are using the right ones. Not only is it a pain in the ass, but every time you waste time making sure that they aren't using your arbitrary water fountain you aren't doing something more important. I have to say ogling hot chicks is far more important than making someone move to the back of a bus or ensuring that the right people are pinning the right stars on their clothing. At least there is a tiny chance of something valuable coming from the ogling.
Not only do you prevent the discriminated group from contributing, which is a huge cost, but then you are also expecting everyone else to also waste their time and effort to make sure that they don't contribute. No, I understand it's important to maintain cohesion in the group. Monopoly of power is of vital importance for many polities. Culture and society is always threatening to tear itself apart, and while dsicrimination is an effective way to marginalize apparently destructive element, I can't help but think that there are better ways to handle it than to let us dick ourselves over.
But yeah, that's just me waxing poetic about a part of discrimination that I don't think I've ever heard anyone else talk about. Why? Quite frankly, I wish I knew.
Back to my original topic, I believe that discrimination is fucking expensive. Not merely expensive, fucking expensive. It requires that every time you choose to interact with folks you check, and a distinct response for each outcome. Yeah, it's a natural thing because we cannot have one general response for everything. Having the same response for police that you do for infants is a horrible idea. So, yeah, but when we start making up arbitrary things to check for... like Jewishness or race.. then that's just heaping more work on everyone. And for what? Not only do you have to build twice the necessary number of water fountains, but you also have to check to make sure that the right people are using the right ones. Not only is it a pain in the ass, but every time you waste time making sure that they aren't using your arbitrary water fountain you aren't doing something more important. I have to say ogling hot chicks is far more important than making someone move to the back of a bus or ensuring that the right people are pinning the right stars on their clothing. At least there is a tiny chance of something valuable coming from the ogling.
Not only do you prevent the discriminated group from contributing, which is a huge cost, but then you are also expecting everyone else to also waste their time and effort to make sure that they don't contribute. No, I understand it's important to maintain cohesion in the group. Monopoly of power is of vital importance for many polities. Culture and society is always threatening to tear itself apart, and while dsicrimination is an effective way to marginalize apparently destructive element, I can't help but think that there are better ways to handle it than to let us dick ourselves over.
But yeah, that's just me waxing poetic about a part of discrimination that I don't think I've ever heard anyone else talk about. Why? Quite frankly, I wish I knew.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
I believe that executives should be paid.
I still believe that how they are paid needs to be reexamined. It has been demonstrated that there is a diminishing marginal utility to even money, among executives and politicians after a certain point paying them more can result in lower quality of work. In some Game Theory experiments this can be done with very simple tasks as well. Basically, I am worried that we are overpaying executives.
I do believe that some of our recent experiences with Green Energy in particular underscores this point. You have executives who land very large bonuses for bringing in huge amounts of government funding, and not really taking care of the meat of their business. These companies collapsed, well, spectacularly over the past six months or so. Similar companies who didn't get very large amounts of government funding and don't pay executives anywhere near as much are still operating. Why?
Well, I think it's a simple case of too much leading to problems. It's not really a case of greed when someone puts in a lot of work (albeit misguided work) and then gets paid a fraction of a percent, but rather one of a lack of strategic vision. Who keeps these things in line? The employees? They don't have any power. The shareholders? Not so long as they're betting on the outcome more than they are trying to contribute to the company. The government? So they can make a mess of his, too?
I do believe that this is a pretty significant flaw in the way our businesses operate at this time. Not a fatal flaw, mind you. I am just worried that a little problem, going beyond the efficiency wage (the notion that higher wages are more likely to attract higher quality labor) into the area of diseconomies of wage, is killing new and innovative industry for no good reason. This hurts everyone, even the executives who appear to benefit over the short run.
I just don't want a trend towards overpayment to kill of green energy and technology-oriented start ups like a handful of engineering mistakes killed off the air ships. It's taken almost a hundred years for investment to once again move into that technology, and some of it is bad ass as hell. I'm just, kinda sad when I think about how much we are missing out on because no one serious thought much about it for a hundred years.
I do believe that some of our recent experiences with Green Energy in particular underscores this point. You have executives who land very large bonuses for bringing in huge amounts of government funding, and not really taking care of the meat of their business. These companies collapsed, well, spectacularly over the past six months or so. Similar companies who didn't get very large amounts of government funding and don't pay executives anywhere near as much are still operating. Why?
Well, I think it's a simple case of too much leading to problems. It's not really a case of greed when someone puts in a lot of work (albeit misguided work) and then gets paid a fraction of a percent, but rather one of a lack of strategic vision. Who keeps these things in line? The employees? They don't have any power. The shareholders? Not so long as they're betting on the outcome more than they are trying to contribute to the company. The government? So they can make a mess of his, too?
I do believe that this is a pretty significant flaw in the way our businesses operate at this time. Not a fatal flaw, mind you. I am just worried that a little problem, going beyond the efficiency wage (the notion that higher wages are more likely to attract higher quality labor) into the area of diseconomies of wage, is killing new and innovative industry for no good reason. This hurts everyone, even the executives who appear to benefit over the short run.
I just don't want a trend towards overpayment to kill of green energy and technology-oriented start ups like a handful of engineering mistakes killed off the air ships. It's taken almost a hundred years for investment to once again move into that technology, and some of it is bad ass as hell. I'm just, kinda sad when I think about how much we are missing out on because no one serious thought much about it for a hundred years.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Getting People Together
I don't know if it's actually the hardest thing to do, or if it just seems that way, but getting people on the same page is really hard. Well, getting people to agree on something as mundane on where to go for lunch is already a difficult and messy process, but more fundamentally getting people to show up at all is a feat in and of itself.
After all, showing up is difficult. Well, it's not always difficult, but it definitely requires conscious effort which always begs the question "Why should I bother?" A prerequisite to essentially anything is caring. And caring requires work. A person has to be able to sell the importance of a meeting or an event in order for anyone to show up, or if that isn't possible then compel them with some form of power. Otherwise, people will spend that time doing things that they find more important or will just choose not to put forth the effort. It's not mean or rude, it's people doing what hey feel is best.
Even then, all of that presupposes that they actually know. I, personally, believe that one of the biggest barriers in business and romance is the fact that we simply don't know anywhere near enough (and more importantly the right) things for these systems to operate the way they really should. Many times, highly skilled applicants for jobs and highly compatible partners are passed over not because they are not the right people but because they simply do not know.
I'm not saying that improvement hasn't been made. The internet allows for all kinds of connections that simply wouldn't be possible otherwise, but getting people to show up for events is a huge challenge. It's all the more daunting for the lack of thought I've given to it before.
After all, showing up is difficult. Well, it's not always difficult, but it definitely requires conscious effort which always begs the question "Why should I bother?" A prerequisite to essentially anything is caring. And caring requires work. A person has to be able to sell the importance of a meeting or an event in order for anyone to show up, or if that isn't possible then compel them with some form of power. Otherwise, people will spend that time doing things that they find more important or will just choose not to put forth the effort. It's not mean or rude, it's people doing what hey feel is best.
Even then, all of that presupposes that they actually know. I, personally, believe that one of the biggest barriers in business and romance is the fact that we simply don't know anywhere near enough (and more importantly the right) things for these systems to operate the way they really should. Many times, highly skilled applicants for jobs and highly compatible partners are passed over not because they are not the right people but because they simply do not know.
I'm not saying that improvement hasn't been made. The internet allows for all kinds of connections that simply wouldn't be possible otherwise, but getting people to show up for events is a huge challenge. It's all the more daunting for the lack of thought I've given to it before.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Common Sense in Politics
What does that even mean? I mean, seriously.
Common sense is the natural conclusions of your assumptions and prior experience. So what does that even mean in the political arena?
I was told that I was stupid because I lack the "common sense" to blame the economic recession on a political actor. That, simply, doesn't make any sense. No politician would want a recession, because that always causes a political backlash on whomever might be in charge at the time. There is no reason for any politician in power to want one, so why would anyone manufacture one?
Moreover, what kind of crazy assumptions is someone bringing with them for that to even make sense? I mean, someone would have to genuinely think that Bush is a drooling idiot and Republicans are irresponsible and self-righteous morons, or that Obama really isn't American and Democrats seek an overthrow of America as we know it. It really makes me frustrated with the political process when the assumptions that folks bring with them have little to do with reality as I see it.
I'm also so frustrated by people who are willing to believe things like this, which impugn the intelligence of those who disagree with them as opposed to making any effort at at when it comes to figuring out why they disagree.
Common sense is the natural conclusions of your assumptions and prior experience. So what does that even mean in the political arena?
I was told that I was stupid because I lack the "common sense" to blame the economic recession on a political actor. That, simply, doesn't make any sense. No politician would want a recession, because that always causes a political backlash on whomever might be in charge at the time. There is no reason for any politician in power to want one, so why would anyone manufacture one?
Moreover, what kind of crazy assumptions is someone bringing with them for that to even make sense? I mean, someone would have to genuinely think that Bush is a drooling idiot and Republicans are irresponsible and self-righteous morons, or that Obama really isn't American and Democrats seek an overthrow of America as we know it. It really makes me frustrated with the political process when the assumptions that folks bring with them have little to do with reality as I see it.
I'm also so frustrated by people who are willing to believe things like this, which impugn the intelligence of those who disagree with them as opposed to making any effort at at when it comes to figuring out why they disagree.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Formula Athiests (part 1?)
One thing has always bothered me about religious discussion online. It's been with the popular strain of atheists online. I'm not talking about religious atheists like some kinds of Buddhists or LaVeyan Satanists, or the more nuanced agnostics. I like to call them formula atheists, but I don't think that's how they self identify.
The thing that has always bothered me is that they had always been far more homogeneous than the religious groups they argue against. They tend to use precisely the same arguments worded almost identically and as often as not they link to the same list of strange/creepy stuff in the bible from 1998. They invariably refuse to discuss things other than Christianity, and seem to think that common criticisms of Christianity somehow invalidate different faith-traditions. They also insist on the strangest form for Biblical Literalism, far more than even the most fundamental of the radical Fundamentalists with this strange aversion to "cherry picking" like making the strange assumption that poetry about women lusting for men with dicks of donkeys is figurative. Never mind theology, or even literary scholarship, everything in the Bible is either entirely literally true or entirely false. Then there are the constant allusions to science about things that science and logic about things that science and logic are silent, asserting that these things are in inevitable and eternal conflict ignoring the long periods where they mutually supported one another.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not definitively stating that they are all entirely false forever. But it was the fact that these discussions almost always go exact same way from the position of the atheist. I've been around long enough that I'm pretty certain that I could effectively spoof that whole discussion from there perspective. Still, I didn't agree in 2000, and I still don't agree now.
I think I figured out why. Now, this is just me putting forth a hypothesis that seems to fit my admittedly casual sample and not intended to apply to all atheists, but just the kind previously discussed. It's a reductionist ideology. It's a simple way to look at a complicate issue. Religious groups are "bad" and the various differences between them and the very nature of theology can be glossed over because a very distinct set of assumptions.
I have to say, if I accepted those assumptions as true and were to base my own world view upon them then I would likely agree with them. Their later arguments are generally well crafted based on the assumptions they start with, they all follow and make sense. The problem is, I'm familiar with a wide variety of theological arguments, and a lot of those assumptions (Christianity is representative of all Religion, The Bible is intended to be entirely literal, Religion opposes Science, Religious people are atheists about all deities except their own) ring false. But, they can appear to be true when not examined. When pressed in discussion, these individuals are not willing to discuss the veracity of these specific topics. Why? Because they are the assumptions, and because these assumptions (among others) are used to reduce the complexity of the issue at hand to where the more complicated arguments make sense and disagreement can be brushed off because they can be assumed to be false based on the givens at the beginning of the discussion.
This is the same kind of idea structure that leads to things like "All Arabs are Muslim and therefore Terrorists", "The Government wants all our stuff and lies therefore we don't have to pay Income Taxes", and "Republicans/Democrats are dicks/hate America therefore they oppress minorities an the poor/force people to do stuff that doesn't make sense". It's all reductionist ideology designed to create artificial certainty about a complicated topics by ignoring that complexity through the use of a set of simplifying assumptions.
The problem is, while these comments and arguments make perfect sense are are unassailable when all involved agree to that set of assumptions, they are arbitrary, opaque, and mostly nonsensical to those who adhere to a different set of assumptions. The only way anyone can "win" is when someone buys into a new set of assumptions.
Now, I'm not saying that this demonstrates that anyone is "wrong" or "right", they also aren't the only ones who do this in religious discussions there are classes of religious debaters who fall into the exact same category. I'm just excited to have a working hypothesis on this particular concept.
What comes next is figuring out a way to test this hypothesis. If I can figure out an experiment then I'll follow this post up with results.
The thing that has always bothered me is that they had always been far more homogeneous than the religious groups they argue against. They tend to use precisely the same arguments worded almost identically and as often as not they link to the same list of strange/creepy stuff in the bible from 1998. They invariably refuse to discuss things other than Christianity, and seem to think that common criticisms of Christianity somehow invalidate different faith-traditions. They also insist on the strangest form for Biblical Literalism, far more than even the most fundamental of the radical Fundamentalists with this strange aversion to "cherry picking" like making the strange assumption that poetry about women lusting for men with dicks of donkeys is figurative. Never mind theology, or even literary scholarship, everything in the Bible is either entirely literally true or entirely false. Then there are the constant allusions to science about things that science and logic about things that science and logic are silent, asserting that these things are in inevitable and eternal conflict ignoring the long periods where they mutually supported one another.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not definitively stating that they are all entirely false forever. But it was the fact that these discussions almost always go exact same way from the position of the atheist. I've been around long enough that I'm pretty certain that I could effectively spoof that whole discussion from there perspective. Still, I didn't agree in 2000, and I still don't agree now.
I think I figured out why. Now, this is just me putting forth a hypothesis that seems to fit my admittedly casual sample and not intended to apply to all atheists, but just the kind previously discussed. It's a reductionist ideology. It's a simple way to look at a complicate issue. Religious groups are "bad" and the various differences between them and the very nature of theology can be glossed over because a very distinct set of assumptions.
I have to say, if I accepted those assumptions as true and were to base my own world view upon them then I would likely agree with them. Their later arguments are generally well crafted based on the assumptions they start with, they all follow and make sense. The problem is, I'm familiar with a wide variety of theological arguments, and a lot of those assumptions (Christianity is representative of all Religion, The Bible is intended to be entirely literal, Religion opposes Science, Religious people are atheists about all deities except their own) ring false. But, they can appear to be true when not examined. When pressed in discussion, these individuals are not willing to discuss the veracity of these specific topics. Why? Because they are the assumptions, and because these assumptions (among others) are used to reduce the complexity of the issue at hand to where the more complicated arguments make sense and disagreement can be brushed off because they can be assumed to be false based on the givens at the beginning of the discussion.
This is the same kind of idea structure that leads to things like "All Arabs are Muslim and therefore Terrorists", "The Government wants all our stuff and lies therefore we don't have to pay Income Taxes", and "Republicans/Democrats are dicks/hate America therefore they oppress minorities an the poor/force people to do stuff that doesn't make sense". It's all reductionist ideology designed to create artificial certainty about a complicated topics by ignoring that complexity through the use of a set of simplifying assumptions.
The problem is, while these comments and arguments make perfect sense are are unassailable when all involved agree to that set of assumptions, they are arbitrary, opaque, and mostly nonsensical to those who adhere to a different set of assumptions. The only way anyone can "win" is when someone buys into a new set of assumptions.
Now, I'm not saying that this demonstrates that anyone is "wrong" or "right", they also aren't the only ones who do this in religious discussions there are classes of religious debaters who fall into the exact same category. I'm just excited to have a working hypothesis on this particular concept.
What comes next is figuring out a way to test this hypothesis. If I can figure out an experiment then I'll follow this post up with results.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Check up on your contracts...
Especially the security deeds for your house. Over the past decade or two changes in the banking system have resulted in inaccurate paperwork. Almost half of all houses now have a gap in the chain of ownership, especially if the residents haven't changed but the banks have. These gaps can make selling the house hard after all having a gap leaves an air of uncertainty and opens up the risk of future lawsuit. In a handful of cases it's even worse, where a security deed has been issued for more than one bank, that means that there is a chance that someone might be able to foreclose on you that you haven't even heard of.
It's very important to keep everything set up right. And audits of foreclosure proceedings have showed errors in just about every case. It would be wise to make sure that the same kind of problems aren't also effecting you.
It's very important to keep everything set up right. And audits of foreclosure proceedings have showed errors in just about every case. It would be wise to make sure that the same kind of problems aren't also effecting you.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Vocabulary makes stupid sound smart.
"Lol, wut?"
"I don't understand all that complicated stuff".
"That issue is simply too full of arcane regulations and byzantine rules for me to form an accurate assessment at this time."
They all mean the same thing, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. It's important to be able to use the latter rather than the former. Even if you never need it, having the unused capacity is simply better than being forced to tell a banker "lol, wut?"
They don't appreciate the humor. Honest, I checked.
So, how does someone develop a complex and varied vocabulary? Well, I know it's not really an easy suggestion, but read. And not newspapers and magazines, since they generally intentionally use grade school vocabularies. It has to be books, the hard and difficult kind. Since they use the good words, the ones that score bonus points for being both recognisable and nuanced. Then, after that, you still have to write, or at least speak, with those words. After all, practice makes it come easy like you're not trying.
Is it work? Yeah, but existing is work. Take it or leave it, but I like whipping out the big words every so often.
"I don't understand all that complicated stuff".
"That issue is simply too full of arcane regulations and byzantine rules for me to form an accurate assessment at this time."
They all mean the same thing, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. It's important to be able to use the latter rather than the former. Even if you never need it, having the unused capacity is simply better than being forced to tell a banker "lol, wut?"
They don't appreciate the humor. Honest, I checked.
So, how does someone develop a complex and varied vocabulary? Well, I know it's not really an easy suggestion, but read. And not newspapers and magazines, since they generally intentionally use grade school vocabularies. It has to be books, the hard and difficult kind. Since they use the good words, the ones that score bonus points for being both recognisable and nuanced. Then, after that, you still have to write, or at least speak, with those words. After all, practice makes it come easy like you're not trying.
Is it work? Yeah, but existing is work. Take it or leave it, but I like whipping out the big words every so often.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
I don't understand lawyers.
No, seriously. I have no idea how their infrastructure came to be. I mean, the concept of billable hours makes no sense for clients, it's a structure designed for abuse. The lawyer essentially HAS to, it'd be stupid not to.
Moreover, they work 80-90 hours a week and generally overtax those who work there while there half of last year's law school graduating classes are still looking for a job. I don't understand why they torture themselves so horribly when there is an easy and ready solution, namely hiring these unemployed lawyers on as mercenary or for contract work. That seems to me to make sense, but then again I'm not a lawyer.
There is just so much strange and arbitrary in the way these firms deal with one another that I am only beginning to observe, much less understand. I must confess, law school has to be necessary. How else can the learn all the secret hand shakes and code words required to operate in a world where tradition is gravity and time cannot be shared especially if it is killing you.
Moreover, they work 80-90 hours a week and generally overtax those who work there while there half of last year's law school graduating classes are still looking for a job. I don't understand why they torture themselves so horribly when there is an easy and ready solution, namely hiring these unemployed lawyers on as mercenary or for contract work. That seems to me to make sense, but then again I'm not a lawyer.
There is just so much strange and arbitrary in the way these firms deal with one another that I am only beginning to observe, much less understand. I must confess, law school has to be necessary. How else can the learn all the secret hand shakes and code words required to operate in a world where tradition is gravity and time cannot be shared especially if it is killing you.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
I think I figured out why some folks are just so much louder than others.
Bear with me, 'cause this is just me spit balling here, but I think that some folks are way louder than average because they don't wait for the gaps in other conversations to speak. Why? Well, I assume that their parents don't and they were raised in an environment where they have to learn to talk over things in order to be heard.
Why? Well, I sit around crowds a bit. And I've noticed that the ambient noise levels varies hugely based on rather small differences in group composition. Basically, a couple of people who talk over other conversations force those other conversations to be louder in order to continue. It quickly leads to a positive feedback loop in which everyone is nearly shouting in short order.
I suspect that working very hard on a handful of individuals to get them to speak in the gaps, like many other individuals do, would reduce both the frequency and volume of this problem. The part I'm stuck on is how to make that possible. After all, telling someone that they are loud and making everyone around them loud isn't exactly tactful, and cooperation is necessary for any progress to be made at all. Since, no forcing someone else to change behavior is almost invariably a bad thing that can only really be managed by using the most distasteful methods.
Any ideas on how to make this minor annoyance less annoying would be most welcome.
Why? Well, I sit around crowds a bit. And I've noticed that the ambient noise levels varies hugely based on rather small differences in group composition. Basically, a couple of people who talk over other conversations force those other conversations to be louder in order to continue. It quickly leads to a positive feedback loop in which everyone is nearly shouting in short order.
I suspect that working very hard on a handful of individuals to get them to speak in the gaps, like many other individuals do, would reduce both the frequency and volume of this problem. The part I'm stuck on is how to make that possible. After all, telling someone that they are loud and making everyone around them loud isn't exactly tactful, and cooperation is necessary for any progress to be made at all. Since, no forcing someone else to change behavior is almost invariably a bad thing that can only really be managed by using the most distasteful methods.
Any ideas on how to make this minor annoyance less annoying would be most welcome.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Bureaucracy...
I don't think that I've ever come across someone who really liked bureaucracy. Still, it's like EVERYWHERE. Why? It's a social construct. It doesn't have to exist. This, like all social constructs exists because we collectively say so. The question become, why do we say so? Why do we make something that we so clearly hate exist?
Well, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing worse than having a bureaucracy is not having one. When trying to make something happen I need to first know who to bug about it. Without something resembling a bureaucracy, I don't have anything to go on. Who do I ask? How do I ask? Where to I go to ask? Who knows? I sure don't. Sure, someone would be dedicated to answering those questions, but it doesn't do me any good if I can't find that person.
At least with a bureaucracy I go to a general building and ask a receptionist. Will I get a run around? Probably, but even that is preferable to never even figuring out where to start. Moreover, that paperwork takes a wide range of very different kinds of inquiries and converts them into like terms, making it far easier to deal with very large numbers of inquiries while stripping a lot of the natural human bias of the thing.
Is it perfect? Fuck no. But it's simply superior than the ad hoc way we used to do things. Until we figure out a better way to do things, I'll just be grateful that we have what we do. That still won't stop me from praying that we figure out something better, however.
Well, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing worse than having a bureaucracy is not having one. When trying to make something happen I need to first know who to bug about it. Without something resembling a bureaucracy, I don't have anything to go on. Who do I ask? How do I ask? Where to I go to ask? Who knows? I sure don't. Sure, someone would be dedicated to answering those questions, but it doesn't do me any good if I can't find that person.
At least with a bureaucracy I go to a general building and ask a receptionist. Will I get a run around? Probably, but even that is preferable to never even figuring out where to start. Moreover, that paperwork takes a wide range of very different kinds of inquiries and converts them into like terms, making it far easier to deal with very large numbers of inquiries while stripping a lot of the natural human bias of the thing.
Is it perfect? Fuck no. But it's simply superior than the ad hoc way we used to do things. Until we figure out a better way to do things, I'll just be grateful that we have what we do. That still won't stop me from praying that we figure out something better, however.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Why does America exist?
That's a good question. I don't rightly know. I have to think that it's simply because we say so. I mean, what other reason could there possibly be. It's not like America is a thing. It has not physical form. There is nothing inherent in a form that defines it.
So, the only thing that makes it exist and keeps it the way it is happens to be people. America is exactly what we make it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Sure, we have a bunch of guidelines, some goals, and a promise as defined by our founding documents but the only reason those mean anything is because we are trying to live by them. Once we collectively stop trying, the whole thing will just collapse.
I don't mean that as a threat or a warning. I don't think it has anything to do with gay marriage as that's an utter nonsequitor no matter how you slice it, nor do I believe that it has anything to do with immigration since converts tends to be some of the most zealous defenders of the ideas they adopt. I am simply trying to point that things like politics, culture, society, and other things that exist only in our heads... well, exist only in our heads.
These things exist for as long as we put forth the time and effort to make them continue to exist. So, America will collapse at some point, but only after I and those like me are long gone. I work pretty hard to make America exist, or at the very least I would like to think that I am. I'm not all that active in the political party aspect.
So, the only thing that makes it exist and keeps it the way it is happens to be people. America is exactly what we make it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Sure, we have a bunch of guidelines, some goals, and a promise as defined by our founding documents but the only reason those mean anything is because we are trying to live by them. Once we collectively stop trying, the whole thing will just collapse.
I don't mean that as a threat or a warning. I don't think it has anything to do with gay marriage as that's an utter nonsequitor no matter how you slice it, nor do I believe that it has anything to do with immigration since converts tends to be some of the most zealous defenders of the ideas they adopt. I am simply trying to point that things like politics, culture, society, and other things that exist only in our heads... well, exist only in our heads.
These things exist for as long as we put forth the time and effort to make them continue to exist. So, America will collapse at some point, but only after I and those like me are long gone. I work pretty hard to make America exist, or at the very least I would like to think that I am. I'm not all that active in the political party aspect.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Whitney Houston is Dead.
I don't want to mean or something, but I honestly do not care. I didn't really care about Michael Jackson either. Is it alright if I sit this out and not grieve for people I do not know and have had no dealings with what so ever?
I'm not saying that other folks can't, but strangers judged me when I didn't care about Michael Jackson and I would rather pass on this thing on the second go round. The whole thing of me being expected to care strikes me as absurd. There are thousands of people who I don't know who die on any given day, and I'm pretty sure that some of them contribute far more to my life than Ms. Houston did. Don't get me wrong, she was an amazing singer and was justly one of the most awarded singers of our time, but why does that mean that I would pretend to have feelings that I don't?
I'm sorry if you did feel a connection, but I simply don't. I don't feel the world has appreciably changed or that things are diminished in any significant way. Death happens, and I tend to not care when death happens far away to people I don't know.
I hope this doesn't make me a jerk.
I'm not saying that other folks can't, but strangers judged me when I didn't care about Michael Jackson and I would rather pass on this thing on the second go round. The whole thing of me being expected to care strikes me as absurd. There are thousands of people who I don't know who die on any given day, and I'm pretty sure that some of them contribute far more to my life than Ms. Houston did. Don't get me wrong, she was an amazing singer and was justly one of the most awarded singers of our time, but why does that mean that I would pretend to have feelings that I don't?
I'm sorry if you did feel a connection, but I simply don't. I don't feel the world has appreciably changed or that things are diminished in any significant way. Death happens, and I tend to not care when death happens far away to people I don't know.
I hope this doesn't make me a jerk.
Have a plan...
Plans are silly, strange things. After all, nothing ever goes to plan. Even the best plans are held together with hope and conjecture. But, going in without a plan tends to be a bigger disaster than going in without one.
Why is that? Honestly, I don't know. I don't have the money and time to come up with a plan to find out, either.
Still, if I had to hazard a guess I think it just has to do with not having to make a new decision at every point along the way. By having a set of guide posts, even less than accurate ones, laid out before hand gives I can act without second guessing myself and trying to reconsider things at times when I really don't have the resources to do so effectively.
It may be messy, inaccurate, and a disaster waiting to happen, I'll still be making these half-baked, flimsy plans made of optimism and a gross overestimation of my actual abilities because if I didn't then I would never get anything done.
Why is that? Honestly, I don't know. I don't have the money and time to come up with a plan to find out, either.
Still, if I had to hazard a guess I think it just has to do with not having to make a new decision at every point along the way. By having a set of guide posts, even less than accurate ones, laid out before hand gives I can act without second guessing myself and trying to reconsider things at times when I really don't have the resources to do so effectively.
It may be messy, inaccurate, and a disaster waiting to happen, I'll still be making these half-baked, flimsy plans made of optimism and a gross overestimation of my actual abilities because if I didn't then I would never get anything done.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Know your audience.
For me, this bit of advice is easy. My audience is myself. This little blurb is mostly a sounding board for dialogs I have with myself, the fact that other folks read it (and the accompanying shot at advertisement revenue) is mostly gravy. So, I don't have to worry about stuff. As long as I make myself happy it's all good.
But, when you are doing anything that you actually expect to be good, or consumed beyond a relatively narrow band of friends and family then a whole new set of considerations come into play. You have to make sure that you know who you are looking to appeal to. Once you know who you want to appeal to then you actually have to do it. That bit is easier said than done, and even if you don't it's possible to squeak by... until someone else does it better.
On a side note, I am working to start a business and might be a tad distracted in my musing and mutterings for a while.
But, when you are doing anything that you actually expect to be good, or consumed beyond a relatively narrow band of friends and family then a whole new set of considerations come into play. You have to make sure that you know who you are looking to appeal to. Once you know who you want to appeal to then you actually have to do it. That bit is easier said than done, and even if you don't it's possible to squeak by... until someone else does it better.
On a side note, I am working to start a business and might be a tad distracted in my musing and mutterings for a while.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Play fair, Fight dirty.
One should always play fair, but never fight fair. I firmly believe that this is true.
Why do we play? We play to learn, to entertain, and to forge friendships. How can you be a good friend if you sharpen your candy canes in Candyland to a nice, sharp point for backstabbing? What does that say about you when things get serious? Nothing is fun about loosing to a cheater, either. Yeah, going around the rules might get you a rush but that's nothing compared to a good match that was well played. A well played loss teaches us so much more than a win could, especially a win that was stolen instead of earned.
A fight, however, is different. In a fight winning is what matters most of all. Even if that wasn't true, in a fight if someone demands that a fight be fair then it isn't. A fair fight is one that you have planned for and expect, even if your foe hasn't. If my foe demands a fair fight then it is a fight that I will likely lose if I acquiesce. If I hope to win a fight, I must fight my own way and by my rules rather than desperately attempting the learn the ways of another in the middle of a struggle.
Then again, I normally prefer framing a struggle so that I win in some way no matter what result comes up.
Why do we play? We play to learn, to entertain, and to forge friendships. How can you be a good friend if you sharpen your candy canes in Candyland to a nice, sharp point for backstabbing? What does that say about you when things get serious? Nothing is fun about loosing to a cheater, either. Yeah, going around the rules might get you a rush but that's nothing compared to a good match that was well played. A well played loss teaches us so much more than a win could, especially a win that was stolen instead of earned.
A fight, however, is different. In a fight winning is what matters most of all. Even if that wasn't true, in a fight if someone demands that a fight be fair then it isn't. A fair fight is one that you have planned for and expect, even if your foe hasn't. If my foe demands a fair fight then it is a fight that I will likely lose if I acquiesce. If I hope to win a fight, I must fight my own way and by my rules rather than desperately attempting the learn the ways of another in the middle of a struggle.
Then again, I normally prefer framing a struggle so that I win in some way no matter what result comes up.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The reason the government can't make jobs.
It seems like a simple enough solution, doesn't it? People need work. Why not just make the government say that there is work? I mean, the government can make things happen. After all, the government makes laws happen, and treaties as well. What is so different about jobs?
Well, the thing that's different is that jobs are simultaneously an asset and a liability. Well, all things are in a broader sense, but in this specific case it's far more obvious. You can order a job into existence, but that costs money, like a lot of money. While there is no authoritative statement as to the actual cost per job of the Recovery Act, number range from $275,000 per job to $100,000 per job. This is, well, a little outlandish considering that the median household income is only $44,389 and median personal income is approximately $27,500.
So, if jobs are that expensive how do governments and businesses get it done under normal circumstances? Well, normally businesses only hire when the job generates more money than it costs, or sensibly supports other jobs that generate more money than they cost. Governments tend to have specific jobs to do, and work as hard as they can to get that done with the fewest number of jobs.
So, it's not that the government can't create jobs. It's that creating jobs only make sense some of the time. To prioritize the existence of a job over the reasons to have a job is to create an expensive mess. It's not so much the fact that creating a job is hard, it's the willing of a job into existence in spite of the usual reasons for doing so that made this hard.
Frankly, I think that it would be easier and more direct to use the power and money to assist people who have reason to hire to do so as opposed to a more ham handed attempt to force things to happen. How about this, give new businesses tax credits and more financing options if they create five jobs and stay in business more than a year? Maybe pair it with free entrepeneurial classes that cover how to handle the complicated parts of starting a business. This way you don't unjustly benefit the rich, you don't benefit existing businesses inequitably, race should be an utter non-issue, and above all you speed up the natural growth and reformation of the market would is happening anyways as opposed to try to force it.
The government has a role to play in the economy, but a politician cannot force the economy to do what he wants. Power is everything in politics, but it's little more than a sideshow to the economy. Using power to get the economy to do things is a recipe for pain and frustration. I don't mind that this was tried before, but I worry that no lesson was learned from it.
Well, the thing that's different is that jobs are simultaneously an asset and a liability. Well, all things are in a broader sense, but in this specific case it's far more obvious. You can order a job into existence, but that costs money, like a lot of money. While there is no authoritative statement as to the actual cost per job of the Recovery Act, number range from $275,000 per job to $100,000 per job. This is, well, a little outlandish considering that the median household income is only $44,389 and median personal income is approximately $27,500.
So, if jobs are that expensive how do governments and businesses get it done under normal circumstances? Well, normally businesses only hire when the job generates more money than it costs, or sensibly supports other jobs that generate more money than they cost. Governments tend to have specific jobs to do, and work as hard as they can to get that done with the fewest number of jobs.
So, it's not that the government can't create jobs. It's that creating jobs only make sense some of the time. To prioritize the existence of a job over the reasons to have a job is to create an expensive mess. It's not so much the fact that creating a job is hard, it's the willing of a job into existence in spite of the usual reasons for doing so that made this hard.
Frankly, I think that it would be easier and more direct to use the power and money to assist people who have reason to hire to do so as opposed to a more ham handed attempt to force things to happen. How about this, give new businesses tax credits and more financing options if they create five jobs and stay in business more than a year? Maybe pair it with free entrepeneurial classes that cover how to handle the complicated parts of starting a business. This way you don't unjustly benefit the rich, you don't benefit existing businesses inequitably, race should be an utter non-issue, and above all you speed up the natural growth and reformation of the market would is happening anyways as opposed to try to force it.
The government has a role to play in the economy, but a politician cannot force the economy to do what he wants. Power is everything in politics, but it's little more than a sideshow to the economy. Using power to get the economy to do things is a recipe for pain and frustration. I don't mind that this was tried before, but I worry that no lesson was learned from it.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Why compound interest is magic.
You put money in a pile, and every so often you check back and there is more money there. MAGIC!!!!
Well, not really. The secret is that the money in that pile isn't actually there any more. That money is being lent to people and exists elsewhere as a home loan, a car loan, the money that companies borrow from the end of the month to pay payroll in the middle of the month, and the like. Why would anyone agree to this? Why would anyone allow their cash reserves to be taken by people they don't know and used to make things happen that they never even hear about? The answer is that magic extra money that shows up. That magic extra money can quickly end up being far greater than the money actually put in the first place.
This means that the same money can be actively saved by one person and actively spent by someone else. One of the bigger problems that contributed to poverty in our history was the problem of finding enough money to actually make stuff happen. Compound Interest made that vanish as a problem for almost all of us. It's relatively easy for us to get the bills required to pay the bills, most of us don't have to worry about finding hard currency or scramble to barter because we just don't have the currency required to make stuff happen. MAGIC!
I mean if a farmer has $5 and a mechanic has $5 at the beginning of the month how much money exists? Well, ten dollars. But if the mechanic buys food for $5. Then, a week later the farmer fixes his equipment for $10. Then, even later the mechanic buys food for $5. At the end of the month, how much money existed? Ten dollars or twenty? The answer, of course, is both because magic. But what if the farmer didn't have the money to pay for repairs? Well, you'd have one sad farmer and one hungry mechanic.
There is, however, a problem with this system. When money slows down the opposite happens. If there was a guy who held money throughout that month, how much more money exists? Well, none. Not really. Money only has value in movement, if it's shoved in a bed then it doesn't mean anything except potential. It could eventually maybe have meaning. While when money is lent and lent again it lets us have our cake and eat it too. When that money comes to a screeching halt because someone charged up credit cards and are unable to keep up or people give home loans to cocker spaniels then it takes our cake and kicks sand in our collective faces. That's what happened in the Great Recession, and is also MAGIC. Although, this magic is the kind that makes you make out with a coat rack in a hotel event room for the amusement of a couple hundred drunk strangers.
In short, compound interest is magic. But you have to be nice to it, and not let people charge you money to give you money. Because that magic can be used against you just as easily as it can be used for you.
Well, not really. The secret is that the money in that pile isn't actually there any more. That money is being lent to people and exists elsewhere as a home loan, a car loan, the money that companies borrow from the end of the month to pay payroll in the middle of the month, and the like. Why would anyone agree to this? Why would anyone allow their cash reserves to be taken by people they don't know and used to make things happen that they never even hear about? The answer is that magic extra money that shows up. That magic extra money can quickly end up being far greater than the money actually put in the first place.
This means that the same money can be actively saved by one person and actively spent by someone else. One of the bigger problems that contributed to poverty in our history was the problem of finding enough money to actually make stuff happen. Compound Interest made that vanish as a problem for almost all of us. It's relatively easy for us to get the bills required to pay the bills, most of us don't have to worry about finding hard currency or scramble to barter because we just don't have the currency required to make stuff happen. MAGIC!
I mean if a farmer has $5 and a mechanic has $5 at the beginning of the month how much money exists? Well, ten dollars. But if the mechanic buys food for $5. Then, a week later the farmer fixes his equipment for $10. Then, even later the mechanic buys food for $5. At the end of the month, how much money existed? Ten dollars or twenty? The answer, of course, is both because magic. But what if the farmer didn't have the money to pay for repairs? Well, you'd have one sad farmer and one hungry mechanic.
There is, however, a problem with this system. When money slows down the opposite happens. If there was a guy who held money throughout that month, how much more money exists? Well, none. Not really. Money only has value in movement, if it's shoved in a bed then it doesn't mean anything except potential. It could eventually maybe have meaning. While when money is lent and lent again it lets us have our cake and eat it too. When that money comes to a screeching halt because someone charged up credit cards and are unable to keep up or people give home loans to cocker spaniels then it takes our cake and kicks sand in our collective faces. That's what happened in the Great Recession, and is also MAGIC. Although, this magic is the kind that makes you make out with a coat rack in a hotel event room for the amusement of a couple hundred drunk strangers.
In short, compound interest is magic. But you have to be nice to it, and not let people charge you money to give you money. Because that magic can be used against you just as easily as it can be used for you.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Americans don't hate the rich.
Americans hate cheaters.
It is a well established fact that Americans, perhaps uniquely among all the world's people, believe that they are one idea, one lucky break, and a couple of years of hard work away from being among the richest of the rich. It also just happens to be, perhaps uniquely among the world's nations, this is simply more true than elsewhere. It's not just not likely, but who care about the odds? It happens, we make it happen, and it can happen to any of us. So, why rant and rave about the rich when that group might include you, your close friends, or your family in a matter of a couple of years?
No, Americans don't hate the rich. We envy those who become rich through luck. We are jealous of those become rich through skill and hard work. We seek to emulate them, sometimes we even succeed. Yet, we still have the Occupy Wall Street folks. There are still people who claim class warfare is just as alive here as it is in Europe. Only, here they don't focus on the rich in general, they focus on the rich who abuse their power. They focus on the rich who seek to escape their obligations, be they taxes or those who seek to lean upon our legal system. We strongly resist the notion that things should be anything but a level playing field.
It's not just the rich either. Have you ever read the restrictions on welfare money? It can't be spent on things from alcohol to strippers to luxury cars. Normally, Americans don't care much about how other folks use their money, but this is a case of cheating. People hate the notion that other folks put all their effort into using tax money and hard work of others to live well (sort of) without having to earn it, it violates our sense of fair play and the notions we have of what people should do.
It's not just that either, but that's part of the thing behind illegal immigration. It's not just that folks are coming here. It's that they are doing so by "cutting" in line ahead of other folks and breaking our laws. For some people it is the immigration bit that is the problem, but there is a reason why they specify illegal every time. Most Americans don't have a problem with immigration, they do have a problem with those they view as cheaters. That may or may not be a fair characterization, but there won't be a simple resolution to this issue until the notion of illegal immigrants as cheaters is dealt with.
Or, at least, that's the sense that I've come to understand.
It is a well established fact that Americans, perhaps uniquely among all the world's people, believe that they are one idea, one lucky break, and a couple of years of hard work away from being among the richest of the rich. It also just happens to be, perhaps uniquely among the world's nations, this is simply more true than elsewhere. It's not just not likely, but who care about the odds? It happens, we make it happen, and it can happen to any of us. So, why rant and rave about the rich when that group might include you, your close friends, or your family in a matter of a couple of years?
No, Americans don't hate the rich. We envy those who become rich through luck. We are jealous of those become rich through skill and hard work. We seek to emulate them, sometimes we even succeed. Yet, we still have the Occupy Wall Street folks. There are still people who claim class warfare is just as alive here as it is in Europe. Only, here they don't focus on the rich in general, they focus on the rich who abuse their power. They focus on the rich who seek to escape their obligations, be they taxes or those who seek to lean upon our legal system. We strongly resist the notion that things should be anything but a level playing field.
It's not just the rich either. Have you ever read the restrictions on welfare money? It can't be spent on things from alcohol to strippers to luxury cars. Normally, Americans don't care much about how other folks use their money, but this is a case of cheating. People hate the notion that other folks put all their effort into using tax money and hard work of others to live well (sort of) without having to earn it, it violates our sense of fair play and the notions we have of what people should do.
It's not just that either, but that's part of the thing behind illegal immigration. It's not just that folks are coming here. It's that they are doing so by "cutting" in line ahead of other folks and breaking our laws. For some people it is the immigration bit that is the problem, but there is a reason why they specify illegal every time. Most Americans don't have a problem with immigration, they do have a problem with those they view as cheaters. That may or may not be a fair characterization, but there won't be a simple resolution to this issue until the notion of illegal immigrants as cheaters is dealt with.
Or, at least, that's the sense that I've come to understand.
Friday, February 3, 2012
If I were to create a super being.
I wouldn't give them solid super powers, after all that would lead to predictable scenarios. No, I would go with something else that's way more dangerous and hopefully entertaining.
Rather, my superbeing would have the powers that the last person to have substantive contact believes that it does. Why? Because knowing stuff, and believing stuff, changes thing. At least on the quantum level. Why not apply that on a grander scale.
It also means that he has the powers his foes believe that he does. Not only that, but he has to carefully manage his image because if he has to stop to rescue someone who deeply believes that he's being ironic about his ability to fly then he'll have to hoof it to someone who believes that he can.
And this opponents! AH, how much fun can you have with that? A deadpan snarker would be his worst nightmare. After all, what if someone can convince his minions/groupies that the superbeing is full of shit, and not in the figurative way?
Would it get confusing? Definitely. Could it run as a webcomic or comic book? Most definitely, but not for decades and decades. At least not in that form. It's a shame that I really don't have the artistic ability to make that happen.
Rather, my superbeing would have the powers that the last person to have substantive contact believes that it does. Why? Because knowing stuff, and believing stuff, changes thing. At least on the quantum level. Why not apply that on a grander scale.
It also means that he has the powers his foes believe that he does. Not only that, but he has to carefully manage his image because if he has to stop to rescue someone who deeply believes that he's being ironic about his ability to fly then he'll have to hoof it to someone who believes that he can.
And this opponents! AH, how much fun can you have with that? A deadpan snarker would be his worst nightmare. After all, what if someone can convince his minions/groupies that the superbeing is full of shit, and not in the figurative way?
Would it get confusing? Definitely. Could it run as a webcomic or comic book? Most definitely, but not for decades and decades. At least not in that form. It's a shame that I really don't have the artistic ability to make that happen.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Music was better when...
I should stop reading the comments in youtube videos. After all, they never change. I remember eight years ago people expounding upon how current music sucks and that real music was from the 1990's. I remember when I was a kid people saying the same thing, that real music was from the 1980's. Now, I read the comments and someone complains about the quality of current music and waxes nostalgic for the music of a decade ago.
Music has always sucked. Well, more accurately, most music that comes out in any genera is mediocre. That's the definition of mediocre. Occasionally you will have a great song, but most of it is instantly forgettable. That's exactly what happens. When people make those play lists for decades gone by they forget the bad stuff, vaguely recall the terrible stuff, play the mediocre stuff only occasionally, and focus heavily on the best.
But beyond that, the common themes of music change over time. They also tend to be acquired tastes. Rap commonly appears in pop songs now. This wasn't the case a few decades ago, and now some of the better songs of the past few years feature a pop artist and a rap artist that provide a counterpoint. This arrangement has be gradually eased into existence over more than a decade. These trends, well they generally mystify me until much later. It's easier to pick out patterns when you have more stuff to work with.
These two things have always happened and will always happen. Twenty years after the fact there will be a station that plays older music part the time and people will compare it to what the current popular music is. That comparison will be unfair, the older stuff will simply sound far better because the play list has been cherry picked and people who grew up with will simply have developed a fondness for the flavor of the older music more so than the newer. And you know what? Their kids will have the same experience twenty years later. It's the way the industry works.
Music has always sucked. Well, more accurately, most music that comes out in any genera is mediocre. That's the definition of mediocre. Occasionally you will have a great song, but most of it is instantly forgettable. That's exactly what happens. When people make those play lists for decades gone by they forget the bad stuff, vaguely recall the terrible stuff, play the mediocre stuff only occasionally, and focus heavily on the best.
But beyond that, the common themes of music change over time. They also tend to be acquired tastes. Rap commonly appears in pop songs now. This wasn't the case a few decades ago, and now some of the better songs of the past few years feature a pop artist and a rap artist that provide a counterpoint. This arrangement has be gradually eased into existence over more than a decade. These trends, well they generally mystify me until much later. It's easier to pick out patterns when you have more stuff to work with.
These two things have always happened and will always happen. Twenty years after the fact there will be a station that plays older music part the time and people will compare it to what the current popular music is. That comparison will be unfair, the older stuff will simply sound far better because the play list has been cherry picked and people who grew up with will simply have developed a fondness for the flavor of the older music more so than the newer. And you know what? Their kids will have the same experience twenty years later. It's the way the industry works.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The reason the movie isn't as good as the book.
There are more than a few cases where the movie based on the book is as good as or even better than the book. But this isn't normally the case. And this is for good reason. When you tell the same story in different mediums things do, in fact, work differently.
The difference between book and film is simply how much stuff you can cover. The story told in a book can be much grander, you can cover dozens or even hundreds of characters over generations of time. Each detail can be expounded upon, or it can take the sweep of centuries. The sheer size of a book can simply be far larger than that in a movie. Even television shows and miniseries tell much greater stories than a movie can. Because, after all you're talking about 90 to 250 minutes of time with a movie. In that time you must introduce the characters, establish the world, build to a climax, and wrap things up. You can end up trying to put dozens of different scenes in four TV episodes. Making it fit is, well, hard.
Another major reason movies often don't live up the book is the fact that we supply our own sets and characters for the books. If the book describes a beautiful woman then we supply our own idea of beauty. If it describes a creepy castle then we fill in the gaps with things that we find creepy. In a book, each one of us creates our own version of those things that suit us perfectly. This isn't true with a movie. In a movie they must hire a beautiful woman and design a castle that they feel is creepy. But, as with all such aesthetics, your mileage varies for this. Different people find different things scary, to different degrees. A hit for most people will be a miss for some, and when the atmosphere and meaning of the story depends upon these things working it is just so much harder.
All this being said, none of this stuff is insurmountable. It's just hard, sometimes it's much harder than people expect.
The difference between book and film is simply how much stuff you can cover. The story told in a book can be much grander, you can cover dozens or even hundreds of characters over generations of time. Each detail can be expounded upon, or it can take the sweep of centuries. The sheer size of a book can simply be far larger than that in a movie. Even television shows and miniseries tell much greater stories than a movie can. Because, after all you're talking about 90 to 250 minutes of time with a movie. In that time you must introduce the characters, establish the world, build to a climax, and wrap things up. You can end up trying to put dozens of different scenes in four TV episodes. Making it fit is, well, hard.
Another major reason movies often don't live up the book is the fact that we supply our own sets and characters for the books. If the book describes a beautiful woman then we supply our own idea of beauty. If it describes a creepy castle then we fill in the gaps with things that we find creepy. In a book, each one of us creates our own version of those things that suit us perfectly. This isn't true with a movie. In a movie they must hire a beautiful woman and design a castle that they feel is creepy. But, as with all such aesthetics, your mileage varies for this. Different people find different things scary, to different degrees. A hit for most people will be a miss for some, and when the atmosphere and meaning of the story depends upon these things working it is just so much harder.
All this being said, none of this stuff is insurmountable. It's just hard, sometimes it's much harder than people expect.
Is it art?
Let's say that there is a sign. A simple sign, white background with a green border and red letters. It states simply "No Art Present" in a place where one would normally expect to see art. You don't know who put it up there or why. Is it art? Is it an official notice stating that whatever would be on display is not? Am I simply being messed with?
I've never gotten the same answer twice. Well, I've asked five people and gotten multiple "yes" and "no" answers, but the reasons were always different. I think this is a function of how the art industry... Industry? Establishment? Thing? ... I don't even know what to call it any more... works.
This... economic structure... exists for a very simple and important reason. To turn things that are art into money, so that people with the talent, vision, and aptitude can spend their time creating art as opposed to doing something else to support themselves. This can, when done properly, lead to much more art existing of a higher quality. I firmly believe that this is a good thing.
What I don't think is a good thing, however, is some of the things being sold as art. There are times when I have been in an art museum and found myself baffled as to why something is art. The remark "my four year old could do that" is often true, a four year old could produce some of the pieces in museums. What a four year old cannot do is convince people that something is art, and therefore worth money. I do believe that this comes from more than a century of "pushing the boundaries of art", which was an effective marketing tool to creating the artistic personages that generate the money that fund the art world as we know it, but the boundaries have been pushed so far that they now appear to be entirely arbitrary. What is art? I am beginning to suspect that it's whatever someone calls art.
I am unconvinced that Warhol's 32 Soup Cans or the Incoherents art movement of the 1880's are actually art, with the exception that they convinced people that they were. I like art, but I have always preferred art that has a point or message. Art that tells me something. I have heard from an art major that this is a primitive view of art. Whatever. When I require an expert in art to discern the differences between a child's scribbles and art, I'm over the whole thing. There are better things for me to do than ponder if that is a coffee stain or a statement about modern, industrial society.
I've never gotten the same answer twice. Well, I've asked five people and gotten multiple "yes" and "no" answers, but the reasons were always different. I think this is a function of how the art industry... Industry? Establishment? Thing? ... I don't even know what to call it any more... works.
This... economic structure... exists for a very simple and important reason. To turn things that are art into money, so that people with the talent, vision, and aptitude can spend their time creating art as opposed to doing something else to support themselves. This can, when done properly, lead to much more art existing of a higher quality. I firmly believe that this is a good thing.
What I don't think is a good thing, however, is some of the things being sold as art. There are times when I have been in an art museum and found myself baffled as to why something is art. The remark "my four year old could do that" is often true, a four year old could produce some of the pieces in museums. What a four year old cannot do is convince people that something is art, and therefore worth money. I do believe that this comes from more than a century of "pushing the boundaries of art", which was an effective marketing tool to creating the artistic personages that generate the money that fund the art world as we know it, but the boundaries have been pushed so far that they now appear to be entirely arbitrary. What is art? I am beginning to suspect that it's whatever someone calls art.
I am unconvinced that Warhol's 32 Soup Cans or the Incoherents art movement of the 1880's are actually art, with the exception that they convinced people that they were. I like art, but I have always preferred art that has a point or message. Art that tells me something. I have heard from an art major that this is a primitive view of art. Whatever. When I require an expert in art to discern the differences between a child's scribbles and art, I'm over the whole thing. There are better things for me to do than ponder if that is a coffee stain or a statement about modern, industrial society.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
What is white anyways?
I'm a white, southern male that's a prime racist demographic, isn't it? Really, I just don't understand that reasoning. And, quite frankly, it's difficult to have the discussions required for me to develop a functional understanding of white supremacists.
I guess the whole thing comes down to one basic thing. I don't even know what white is supposed to mean. All that stuff about white power, white culture, and the like. Really, I just don't know what they are going on about. Are they talking about the sum of all people of European descent? If so, that's not a thing, or at least not a coherent enough thing to actually be meaningful.
Do they intend to imply pride in one's heritage? Well, I'm primarily of Polish descent and identify with that heavily. That doesn't really put me on good terms with the mythos that they seem to ascribe, Swedes are dicks and Germans historically tried to makes slaves out of any of my people who didn't actively kick their asses. In fact, "slave" is a derivative of the German word which in turn is derived from "Slav". Poles were west slavs, as were Bohemians, and Silesians. Wouldn't that lead me to identify more with groups with a similar history of being abused? Besides, some kind of pan-European thing really pisses me off because it'd hand my Eastern European roots (and the interesting history thereof) the short end of the stick yet again. So, I guess that can't be it.
Do they mean some kind of new cultural identity in America as defined by skin color? Well, this is most likely, but if you don't mind me asking where the hell is it? There is definitely an American culture, and each state has a different flavor thereof, but I really don't see how the dominant culture here in Georgia is exclusively white, or even how this farcical concept of race factors. Growing up people of other ancestries have always acted like me, talked like me, believed in my state and nation like me, and have the American dream like me. I can't, for the life of me, figure out where that dividing line supposed is.
I don't even buy the whole concept of race any more. Now, culture and people exists because it is a combination of genetic predisposition and traditions that create something slightly different. They inform minor differences in average ability and the base assumptions that people take with them when entering a situation. Race, well, doesn't. Race is a collection of hundreds of these different peoples and cultures based on a phenotype. There are few general genetic predispositions and virtually no common cultural practices among a race. It's a useless generalization. Hell, the only reason that black is a thing is because the previous cultural practices were largely stopped out and people were tossed together in such an arbitrary fashion into a larger culture that they had not choice to form their own subculture. White never did, there was no common purpose or separation from cultures of origin, there was no reason to chuck all of it and come up with a generalized identity to provide us with a sense of history.
I have to say that I still just can't buy the racist explanation of things. I just don't see where they are coming from, blank nothingness of an imagined culture is not something I seek to defend. There is no white culture, there is no white race. There is, however, American culture. I'll buy into that just fine, thank you very much.
I guess the whole thing comes down to one basic thing. I don't even know what white is supposed to mean. All that stuff about white power, white culture, and the like. Really, I just don't know what they are going on about. Are they talking about the sum of all people of European descent? If so, that's not a thing, or at least not a coherent enough thing to actually be meaningful.
Do they intend to imply pride in one's heritage? Well, I'm primarily of Polish descent and identify with that heavily. That doesn't really put me on good terms with the mythos that they seem to ascribe, Swedes are dicks and Germans historically tried to makes slaves out of any of my people who didn't actively kick their asses. In fact, "slave" is a derivative of the German word which in turn is derived from "Slav". Poles were west slavs, as were Bohemians, and Silesians. Wouldn't that lead me to identify more with groups with a similar history of being abused? Besides, some kind of pan-European thing really pisses me off because it'd hand my Eastern European roots (and the interesting history thereof) the short end of the stick yet again. So, I guess that can't be it.
Do they mean some kind of new cultural identity in America as defined by skin color? Well, this is most likely, but if you don't mind me asking where the hell is it? There is definitely an American culture, and each state has a different flavor thereof, but I really don't see how the dominant culture here in Georgia is exclusively white, or even how this farcical concept of race factors. Growing up people of other ancestries have always acted like me, talked like me, believed in my state and nation like me, and have the American dream like me. I can't, for the life of me, figure out where that dividing line supposed is.
I don't even buy the whole concept of race any more. Now, culture and people exists because it is a combination of genetic predisposition and traditions that create something slightly different. They inform minor differences in average ability and the base assumptions that people take with them when entering a situation. Race, well, doesn't. Race is a collection of hundreds of these different peoples and cultures based on a phenotype. There are few general genetic predispositions and virtually no common cultural practices among a race. It's a useless generalization. Hell, the only reason that black is a thing is because the previous cultural practices were largely stopped out and people were tossed together in such an arbitrary fashion into a larger culture that they had not choice to form their own subculture. White never did, there was no common purpose or separation from cultures of origin, there was no reason to chuck all of it and come up with a generalized identity to provide us with a sense of history.
I have to say that I still just can't buy the racist explanation of things. I just don't see where they are coming from, blank nothingness of an imagined culture is not something I seek to defend. There is no white culture, there is no white race. There is, however, American culture. I'll buy into that just fine, thank you very much.
Monday, January 30, 2012
The Problems with Legalizing Pot.
I'm not discussing if we should or not. That's an entirely different question altogether, and one that I don't believe that I am qualified enough to speak to. I just don't know enough about pot. I haven't done it myself, and there are few trustworthy sources of information. So I don't know what we stand to gain from such a move, but I am aware of a number of the problems that will have to be faced.
The first is the creation of a legal pot industry. There are some legal sources (under state law, but not legal under Federal law), distribution networks, and dispensaries. The problem is that they just aren't anywhere near as well developed as they have to be in order to face off against the illegal networks. Illegal networks won't just magically become legal and the industry required to function will not just poof into being. There is no Pabst, Schlitz, Bush, Coors, and Yuengling waiting in the wings to restart production. These companies will have to grow into existence. The question I ask is how they can, especially considered that they will be heavily regulated by forces who are unhappy with the existence of any legal pot at all.
Which brings me to the next bit. Illegal pot isn't going away. It will never go away, just as moonshine has never gone away. We STILL have a serious moonshine problem in this some eighty years after the end of prohibition. Alcohol is no long illegal, but it has shifted to a grey market good one that isn't illegal in and of itself but becomes illegal because they don't pay taxes or violate other regulations. We have a problem with moonshine, with cigarette smuggling, and all manner of counterfeit good. Pot would move into this category, and if pot is taxed and regulated then you'd end up with less safe but cheaper alternative that people will take. And that's assuming that he criminal organizations roll over and play dead, all you need is a little racketeering or raids on legitimate dispensaries and you wind up with a fledgling industry on life support and criminals holding it hostage as a shield against law enforcement. This is one area where a legal industry must come to dominate immediately and without scandal to keep it from merely putting a "legitimate businessman" face on organized crime.
Now, let's assume that we have a strong industry that quickly grows into being and smashes their illegal competitors with their capitalistic might, how about that regulation? Business requires a stable legal environment. This has been demonstrated to be true constantly throughout the history of the world, when laws constantly change businesses suffer and fail. Where laws remain consistent they tend to do well. Generalization? Definitely, but an accurate one. Can we have the political will to ensure that neither the proponents of legalized pot don't constantly change enforcement policy to meaninglessness or those who oppose the drug from moral grounds from ratcheting up rules and restrictions that don't hold up in court? After all, that constant back and forth will weaken the industry and creates openings for less than legal alternatives.
But ultimately, we cannot know what rules and regulations are most effective, because most research has been tainted by bias. Neither side is innocent of this. Pot had nothing to do with any car accidents? That's a farce. If peanut butter, raspberries, and milk interact with drugs, then pot HAS TO interact with something. RASPBERRIES. Think about that for just a second. By the same token, all you have to do is watch "Reefer Fever" for ten minutes to get a flavor with what we are dealing with on the other side. Almost a century of misinformation and muddying the issue is what we have to deal with here. I, for one, need that research to be accurate before I can really answer most of these questions. How can anyone craft simple, effective rules if we aren't absolutely certain about what it is and how it works?
Once again, people are smart. We can figure this out, hit these problems hard and make this happen with a minimum of fuss and pain. Now, if only we can figure out if we should. I'm going to sit in my corner and politely oppose legalization at least until I see a plan that addresses these concerns, and even then I don't rightly know if I should back it.
The first is the creation of a legal pot industry. There are some legal sources (under state law, but not legal under Federal law), distribution networks, and dispensaries. The problem is that they just aren't anywhere near as well developed as they have to be in order to face off against the illegal networks. Illegal networks won't just magically become legal and the industry required to function will not just poof into being. There is no Pabst, Schlitz, Bush, Coors, and Yuengling waiting in the wings to restart production. These companies will have to grow into existence. The question I ask is how they can, especially considered that they will be heavily regulated by forces who are unhappy with the existence of any legal pot at all.
Which brings me to the next bit. Illegal pot isn't going away. It will never go away, just as moonshine has never gone away. We STILL have a serious moonshine problem in this some eighty years after the end of prohibition. Alcohol is no long illegal, but it has shifted to a grey market good one that isn't illegal in and of itself but becomes illegal because they don't pay taxes or violate other regulations. We have a problem with moonshine, with cigarette smuggling, and all manner of counterfeit good. Pot would move into this category, and if pot is taxed and regulated then you'd end up with less safe but cheaper alternative that people will take. And that's assuming that he criminal organizations roll over and play dead, all you need is a little racketeering or raids on legitimate dispensaries and you wind up with a fledgling industry on life support and criminals holding it hostage as a shield against law enforcement. This is one area where a legal industry must come to dominate immediately and without scandal to keep it from merely putting a "legitimate businessman" face on organized crime.
Now, let's assume that we have a strong industry that quickly grows into being and smashes their illegal competitors with their capitalistic might, how about that regulation? Business requires a stable legal environment. This has been demonstrated to be true constantly throughout the history of the world, when laws constantly change businesses suffer and fail. Where laws remain consistent they tend to do well. Generalization? Definitely, but an accurate one. Can we have the political will to ensure that neither the proponents of legalized pot don't constantly change enforcement policy to meaninglessness or those who oppose the drug from moral grounds from ratcheting up rules and restrictions that don't hold up in court? After all, that constant back and forth will weaken the industry and creates openings for less than legal alternatives.
But ultimately, we cannot know what rules and regulations are most effective, because most research has been tainted by bias. Neither side is innocent of this. Pot had nothing to do with any car accidents? That's a farce. If peanut butter, raspberries, and milk interact with drugs, then pot HAS TO interact with something. RASPBERRIES. Think about that for just a second. By the same token, all you have to do is watch "Reefer Fever" for ten minutes to get a flavor with what we are dealing with on the other side. Almost a century of misinformation and muddying the issue is what we have to deal with here. I, for one, need that research to be accurate before I can really answer most of these questions. How can anyone craft simple, effective rules if we aren't absolutely certain about what it is and how it works?
Once again, people are smart. We can figure this out, hit these problems hard and make this happen with a minimum of fuss and pain. Now, if only we can figure out if we should. I'm going to sit in my corner and politely oppose legalization at least until I see a plan that addresses these concerns, and even then I don't rightly know if I should back it.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Check up on your bank.
Most of you who talked to me in person have heard me go on something about banks. Unlike some people who rant about banks, I'm not against them. That being said, please carefully read up on and evaluate which bank you do business.
I have to say that Wells Fargo and Bank of America have lost a lot of points in my book. Not only were they caught up in a series of scandals, which actually isn't over with given how slowly they've adjusted their practices. If they keep this up they'll be facing another round of multi-billion dollar mortgage lawsuits. But that's not why I'm really upset with them. It's how they've been building fees into their accounts. Their "free" checking and savings can run into the hundreds of dollars a year in fees. A number of their services, most notably Wells Fargo's inferior online banking, are notably lacking.
The galling bit is that there is no reason for anyone to put up with this. No reason at all. Sure, changing banks takes time and is a huge hassle, but you can save hundreds in fees and get better rates at other banking options. Credit unions, local banks, even investment banks often offer better alternatives to the commercial banks. Different situations and different people means that any attempt I make at giving general rules of thumb will be wrong as often as it's right.
Remember they put on these fees because people don't react strongly to them. It doesn't take much movement to make them sensitive to customer service again, after all they need us more than we need them. Banks depend on deposits to do what they do, there no reason to pay them to let them do it. In fact, the interest those accounts bear is the bank paying us. They'll do what they can get away with, so let's not let them get away with anything too bad.
I have to say that Wells Fargo and Bank of America have lost a lot of points in my book. Not only were they caught up in a series of scandals, which actually isn't over with given how slowly they've adjusted their practices. If they keep this up they'll be facing another round of multi-billion dollar mortgage lawsuits. But that's not why I'm really upset with them. It's how they've been building fees into their accounts. Their "free" checking and savings can run into the hundreds of dollars a year in fees. A number of their services, most notably Wells Fargo's inferior online banking, are notably lacking.
The galling bit is that there is no reason for anyone to put up with this. No reason at all. Sure, changing banks takes time and is a huge hassle, but you can save hundreds in fees and get better rates at other banking options. Credit unions, local banks, even investment banks often offer better alternatives to the commercial banks. Different situations and different people means that any attempt I make at giving general rules of thumb will be wrong as often as it's right.
Remember they put on these fees because people don't react strongly to them. It doesn't take much movement to make them sensitive to customer service again, after all they need us more than we need them. Banks depend on deposits to do what they do, there no reason to pay them to let them do it. In fact, the interest those accounts bear is the bank paying us. They'll do what they can get away with, so let's not let them get away with anything too bad.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Why I would die horribly during a zombie apocalpyse...
Let's face it, we all assume that we'd make it through the initial stages of a zombie scenario. After all, dying from disease or from a bite when everything else is still normal doesn't make for a very good story. But, it does beg the question, where does the massive hordes of shambling undead come from if no one is the first to go?
In reality, I'd likely be one of the first would go, and so would you. After all, caught completely flat footed there's really not much that can be done. You can't effectively fight off a zombie ambush if you don't even know that there are zombies. If, in that initial shock, the community you are in panics and disintegrates instead of repelling the hostile dead then you're probably going to die. That's just how things like this work, when there isn't a way around it.
Assuming the police and fellow citizens hold things together long there's the fact that I'm fat. Not ridiculously so, but enough to effectively slow me down. There's a good chance that I will be ambushed, and I'm not in such excellent enough shape to assume right off that I will escape. And that assuming that there's a place for me to go, if there isn't an organized plan for people in general then I'm likely to stay put which could be a death sentence should things beyond my control turn out the wrong way.
So, assuming that I don't catch whatever it is prior to the disaster proper and I don't die in the immediate aftermath then the real problems start. After all, I don't believe that zombies would be the biggest threat to my survival in the months after the disaster. I believe that other survivors would hold that particularly honor, mostly because I will have things that they need and those things that maintain trade and civil discourse will have largely evaporated. Humanity has a plan "C" for when they need stuff that they cannot trade for and that cannot be shared, it involves murder and theft. There is no doubt in my mind that I would be on the receiving end as opposed to the giving end of that sort of interaction.
So, assuming that I don't die of the zombiness prior to the first outbreak, don't get caught in a panic that results in painful death, and manage to avoid looters and other people willing to kill me to get the stuff they need to save their family and friends then I just have to worry about everything else that kills human being. It's not like we avoid death as it is, and virtually everything that kills people now will still kill people then. Aside from accidental bear attack and being hit by a car there's the normal raft of disease, the threat of contaminants improperly disposed of in the mayhem, and the problems of lack of maintenance for the stuff around us, after all when machines start falling apart people start getting really hurt.
Beyond all of that, I also lack the skills required to survive the disaster itself. I'm not an expert shot, and while I have gone camping periodically I'm not exactly "woodsy". This is a shame because I have exactly the right skills for building the new society that would emerge from the disaster, or at least I think I do. Really, I believe that how good we come out of the initial stages of that kind of disaster would depend how well people like myself can come through it. If we rescue each other and keep our connections to one another strong throughout then we don't have to lose everything, but this is just me waxing poetic about something that is unlikely to happen.
In reality, I'd likely be one of the first would go, and so would you. After all, caught completely flat footed there's really not much that can be done. You can't effectively fight off a zombie ambush if you don't even know that there are zombies. If, in that initial shock, the community you are in panics and disintegrates instead of repelling the hostile dead then you're probably going to die. That's just how things like this work, when there isn't a way around it.
Assuming the police and fellow citizens hold things together long there's the fact that I'm fat. Not ridiculously so, but enough to effectively slow me down. There's a good chance that I will be ambushed, and I'm not in such excellent enough shape to assume right off that I will escape. And that assuming that there's a place for me to go, if there isn't an organized plan for people in general then I'm likely to stay put which could be a death sentence should things beyond my control turn out the wrong way.
So, assuming that I don't catch whatever it is prior to the disaster proper and I don't die in the immediate aftermath then the real problems start. After all, I don't believe that zombies would be the biggest threat to my survival in the months after the disaster. I believe that other survivors would hold that particularly honor, mostly because I will have things that they need and those things that maintain trade and civil discourse will have largely evaporated. Humanity has a plan "C" for when they need stuff that they cannot trade for and that cannot be shared, it involves murder and theft. There is no doubt in my mind that I would be on the receiving end as opposed to the giving end of that sort of interaction.
So, assuming that I don't die of the zombiness prior to the first outbreak, don't get caught in a panic that results in painful death, and manage to avoid looters and other people willing to kill me to get the stuff they need to save their family and friends then I just have to worry about everything else that kills human being. It's not like we avoid death as it is, and virtually everything that kills people now will still kill people then. Aside from accidental bear attack and being hit by a car there's the normal raft of disease, the threat of contaminants improperly disposed of in the mayhem, and the problems of lack of maintenance for the stuff around us, after all when machines start falling apart people start getting really hurt.
Beyond all of that, I also lack the skills required to survive the disaster itself. I'm not an expert shot, and while I have gone camping periodically I'm not exactly "woodsy". This is a shame because I have exactly the right skills for building the new society that would emerge from the disaster, or at least I think I do. Really, I believe that how good we come out of the initial stages of that kind of disaster would depend how well people like myself can come through it. If we rescue each other and keep our connections to one another strong throughout then we don't have to lose everything, but this is just me waxing poetic about something that is unlikely to happen.
Friday, January 27, 2012
People should develop hobbies.
The primary argument against is that it takes time and effort, but please bear with me while I enumerate the reasons why I think that hobbies are a really good idea. There are just so many reasons that it actually takes me a while to really think it out:
1) It fights boredom. Sometimes I'm bored, but when I think about it there's always a lot out there that I could be doing. I just don't do it because, well, I'm not thinking about it. Having a formal hobby gives me something to slap in there when I can't think of anything else to do. I have come to believe that humans must always be doing something, even if that something is actively doing nothing.
2) It makes gift giving cheap and easy. After all, if I make something to give to someone it's generally cheaper than buying something. Also, when buying something is hard because I don't know what they would enjoy it gives me a huge out. Because I made it myself it has meaning, meaning that would be lacking if I sought to just buy them something. It also protects me against the little in-jokes I like to make with birthday present, you know if they go over poorly.
3) It can make money, or partially pay for itself. Entertainment is expensive. There are several billion dollar industries dedicated to keeping us busy and entertained. If I can entertain myself while making something that I can sell informally to make up the cost of materials AND entertain someone else, how is that not a great idea? Granted, if everyone did it then it would be hard for me to sell my own hand made stuff. Still, not everyone is going to even though I'm suggesting that t might be a good idea.
4) It develops other skills. After all, experience in doing your own thing and possibly running your own side business pays dividends when trying to do other things. If nothing else, doing work with your hands is exercise and helps work with coordination. People with hobbies are less likely to suffer form Alzheimer's and other age-related illness. People who have hobbies that involve lifting and moving things don't have to spend as long at a gym to keep things going as they're getting some exercise elsewhere. There are a lot of little side benefits like that, and sometimes people find their jobs made easier because they picked up a hobby.
5) It makes friendships easier. Feel boring? Well, if you have a hobby then you're less boring. Have nothing to talk about? Well, have a hobby and you do. Have nothing in common? Ask about their hobbies and share about yours. If nothing else, it's a social out and excuse to talk with the hot chicks.
The long and the short of it. I don't know why I started thinking about this topic... maybe that's a hobby of mine.... you know... thinking about things...
1) It fights boredom. Sometimes I'm bored, but when I think about it there's always a lot out there that I could be doing. I just don't do it because, well, I'm not thinking about it. Having a formal hobby gives me something to slap in there when I can't think of anything else to do. I have come to believe that humans must always be doing something, even if that something is actively doing nothing.
2) It makes gift giving cheap and easy. After all, if I make something to give to someone it's generally cheaper than buying something. Also, when buying something is hard because I don't know what they would enjoy it gives me a huge out. Because I made it myself it has meaning, meaning that would be lacking if I sought to just buy them something. It also protects me against the little in-jokes I like to make with birthday present, you know if they go over poorly.
3) It can make money, or partially pay for itself. Entertainment is expensive. There are several billion dollar industries dedicated to keeping us busy and entertained. If I can entertain myself while making something that I can sell informally to make up the cost of materials AND entertain someone else, how is that not a great idea? Granted, if everyone did it then it would be hard for me to sell my own hand made stuff. Still, not everyone is going to even though I'm suggesting that t might be a good idea.
4) It develops other skills. After all, experience in doing your own thing and possibly running your own side business pays dividends when trying to do other things. If nothing else, doing work with your hands is exercise and helps work with coordination. People with hobbies are less likely to suffer form Alzheimer's and other age-related illness. People who have hobbies that involve lifting and moving things don't have to spend as long at a gym to keep things going as they're getting some exercise elsewhere. There are a lot of little side benefits like that, and sometimes people find their jobs made easier because they picked up a hobby.
5) It makes friendships easier. Feel boring? Well, if you have a hobby then you're less boring. Have nothing to talk about? Well, have a hobby and you do. Have nothing in common? Ask about their hobbies and share about yours. If nothing else, it's a social out and excuse to talk with the hot chicks.
The long and the short of it. I don't know why I started thinking about this topic... maybe that's a hobby of mine.... you know... thinking about things...
Thursday, January 26, 2012
I'm not that smart.
More accurately, I am smart but I think that folks are far smarter than they let on, or even give themselves credit for. Although, the subject matters that people tend to choose to specialize in might not be the most wise.
Now, I specialized my knowledge fairly early on. I realized that I wanted to go into the science behind economics, and that necessitated some things. I needed to become conversant in a little bit of everything so that I wouldn't be shooting blind when I don't have the time to do the real research, and I need to know great deal about a handful of esoteric topics. This, apparently, makes me smart. That being said, I'm painfully aware that I just don't know anything at all about a wide variety of topics that are very culturally significant, and some other topics that might lead to me, personally, being ripped off by mechanics and other forms of skilled labor.
People know a lot. No, that's an understatement. The sheer volume of things that even the most stereotypically stupid among us know and understand boggles the mind. In order to be in good standing with the celebrity watchers you don't just need to know stuff, you also need to be tapped into a complex and sophisticated information gathering network. The industry and resources devoted to gossip shame many other news networks, and those involved are highly skilled demonstrate an extreme degree of cunning. Even the consumers of such works have to display an excellent ability to consume and catalogue information. Now, I question the usefulness of this information, but the capacity is there and it should be blatantly obvious.
If only those investments could be tapped into, you could solve a great deal of issues. That being said, it's nowhere even close to my place to judge such decisions. One of the defining characteristics of our political, economic, and social structures is the firm belief that the individual is the best person to decide on how that individual will allocate his or her resources. Do I agree with the investment of intellect and resources into gossip and the entertainment industry? Not really, but on the same token I doubt that many other folks would indulge my weakness for internet spaceships or mad scribblings, either. It comes down to values, assumptions, and resource allocation, as opposed to a lack of capability.
People are smart, skilled, and generally good. But it's up to them to use those resources and some of us (myself included) need to invest them more wisely.
Now, I specialized my knowledge fairly early on. I realized that I wanted to go into the science behind economics, and that necessitated some things. I needed to become conversant in a little bit of everything so that I wouldn't be shooting blind when I don't have the time to do the real research, and I need to know great deal about a handful of esoteric topics. This, apparently, makes me smart. That being said, I'm painfully aware that I just don't know anything at all about a wide variety of topics that are very culturally significant, and some other topics that might lead to me, personally, being ripped off by mechanics and other forms of skilled labor.
People know a lot. No, that's an understatement. The sheer volume of things that even the most stereotypically stupid among us know and understand boggles the mind. In order to be in good standing with the celebrity watchers you don't just need to know stuff, you also need to be tapped into a complex and sophisticated information gathering network. The industry and resources devoted to gossip shame many other news networks, and those involved are highly skilled demonstrate an extreme degree of cunning. Even the consumers of such works have to display an excellent ability to consume and catalogue information. Now, I question the usefulness of this information, but the capacity is there and it should be blatantly obvious.
If only those investments could be tapped into, you could solve a great deal of issues. That being said, it's nowhere even close to my place to judge such decisions. One of the defining characteristics of our political, economic, and social structures is the firm belief that the individual is the best person to decide on how that individual will allocate his or her resources. Do I agree with the investment of intellect and resources into gossip and the entertainment industry? Not really, but on the same token I doubt that many other folks would indulge my weakness for internet spaceships or mad scribblings, either. It comes down to values, assumptions, and resource allocation, as opposed to a lack of capability.
People are smart, skilled, and generally good. But it's up to them to use those resources and some of us (myself included) need to invest them more wisely.
Just because something is impossible...
Just because something is impossible doesn't mean that it isn't worth doing. A impossible (or merely impractical) end doesn't mean that the combination of positive externalities (or side effects) and what can be managed isn't the best outcome available, even if it the stated end simply isn't likely to ever come true.
The list of organizations with impossible aims are incredibly long, consisting of virtually every political, charitable, religious, and fraternal organization to exist. Does the fact that things like "eliminating poverty" are impossible by definition diminish the charity? No. Is the fact that a political organization cannot possibly enact the entirety of their platform detract from what they do manage? Not really. Impossible goals are common, and just because something is impossible is not an excuse not to try. People do great things with next to nothing when they don't give up. Just ask Tesla, Lettow-Vorbeck, and Mother Theresa.
Many of the greatest and most celebrated people have failed at their stated aims, while bettering the world in ways beyond imagining. Life isn't pass/fail, and it's possible to succeed even in defeat.
The list of organizations with impossible aims are incredibly long, consisting of virtually every political, charitable, religious, and fraternal organization to exist. Does the fact that things like "eliminating poverty" are impossible by definition diminish the charity? No. Is the fact that a political organization cannot possibly enact the entirety of their platform detract from what they do manage? Not really. Impossible goals are common, and just because something is impossible is not an excuse not to try. People do great things with next to nothing when they don't give up. Just ask Tesla, Lettow-Vorbeck, and Mother Theresa.
Many of the greatest and most celebrated people have failed at their stated aims, while bettering the world in ways beyond imagining. Life isn't pass/fail, and it's possible to succeed even in defeat.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Why rent to own stores make me mad...
So, we all hear those adds. That promise consumer electronics for "low monthly payments". They sometimes bill themselves as "The new way to buy in the new economy". They are rent to own store. The idea is that you go to the store and bring home a large purchase such as a computer, TV set, kitchen appliances, or a washer/dryer. Then you just make a payment like $99 a month or something and in two or three years you own it. It seems pretty reasonable at first, don't you think?
The problem is I sat down and totalled up the price. You could buy two outright for that. That's right, their rent to own prices tend to double the prices of normal retailers. And this is targeted to low income families already living paycheck to paycheck? Oh, you're poor, we'll charge you two times the price of a higher income family? Moral outrage aside, there are several class action cases in different states about franchise owners illegitimately selling these accounts to collectors and doing things like installing spyware on items like computers where the data wound up in the hands of less that reputable sources, and that's not even touching the lawsuit in Texas where a store turned on a laptop's camera.
I, personally, classify this business model as predatory. The service provided is inferior to other forms of financing, even charging it on a credit card results in far lower prices, even with the risk for long term indebtedness. These stores only exist where poverty does, a clear indication that this model can only exist in a dearth of other options. This annoys me as much as title pawns and check cashing stores do, because those other places can be argued to actually have valid uses in some cases. Rent to own stores have no such excuse. They're preying on people who don't have the ability to build up cash reserves or people who are bad at math to the point where they consider $35 every month for two years a valid offer for a $500 computer.
The problem is I sat down and totalled up the price. You could buy two outright for that. That's right, their rent to own prices tend to double the prices of normal retailers. And this is targeted to low income families already living paycheck to paycheck? Oh, you're poor, we'll charge you two times the price of a higher income family? Moral outrage aside, there are several class action cases in different states about franchise owners illegitimately selling these accounts to collectors and doing things like installing spyware on items like computers where the data wound up in the hands of less that reputable sources, and that's not even touching the lawsuit in Texas where a store turned on a laptop's camera.
I, personally, classify this business model as predatory. The service provided is inferior to other forms of financing, even charging it on a credit card results in far lower prices, even with the risk for long term indebtedness. These stores only exist where poverty does, a clear indication that this model can only exist in a dearth of other options. This annoys me as much as title pawns and check cashing stores do, because those other places can be argued to actually have valid uses in some cases. Rent to own stores have no such excuse. They're preying on people who don't have the ability to build up cash reserves or people who are bad at math to the point where they consider $35 every month for two years a valid offer for a $500 computer.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
On Common Sense
I strongly dislike common sense. It's not because I don't have it. Rather, it's because people commonly misunderstand it. Common sense isn't held in common and is not even right as often as not. That's because it's not grounded upon universal truth or even consensus, it's grounded exclusively upon two things personal experience and the base assumptions a person uses to face the world.
Now, I'm not knocking it in general. I have to say that it's necessary and quite useful, but that still doesn't mean that I have to like it. What I don't like about it is that it's the next logical step, conclusions so blindingly obvious given my prior experience that I don't even think about them any more. It's hard to realize that other people haven't had my experience or are operating under a different set of assumptions, such as the disturbingly common notion that people are stupid instead of merely different.
The worst bit, is when the notion of a universal common sense, normally reinforced by living with people who have had similar experiences and assumptions, is used to support that assertion that people are stupid and the speaker managed to magically dodge that bullet. In reality, I'm simply looking at a shared method with different starting values, which naturally results in very different outcomes.
I can tell you right now, the next time I find myself outraged that someone else missed something that is so obvious that it's as integral to that process as breathing I know I'll take a step back. Even if you don't, well this is something to think about, isn't it?
Now, I'm not knocking it in general. I have to say that it's necessary and quite useful, but that still doesn't mean that I have to like it. What I don't like about it is that it's the next logical step, conclusions so blindingly obvious given my prior experience that I don't even think about them any more. It's hard to realize that other people haven't had my experience or are operating under a different set of assumptions, such as the disturbingly common notion that people are stupid instead of merely different.
The worst bit, is when the notion of a universal common sense, normally reinforced by living with people who have had similar experiences and assumptions, is used to support that assertion that people are stupid and the speaker managed to magically dodge that bullet. In reality, I'm simply looking at a shared method with different starting values, which naturally results in very different outcomes.
I can tell you right now, the next time I find myself outraged that someone else missed something that is so obvious that it's as integral to that process as breathing I know I'll take a step back. Even if you don't, well this is something to think about, isn't it?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Why I will never be a great game designer...
I like commerce, economics, and the like. That's actually what I want to do with by life. So, when I get myself a game like Recetear I am off to spend a couple hundred hours making imaginary money and the like. Even in MMOs I prefer EvE Online, where I am allowed to pull my financial shennanigans, to WoW, which will not let me pull off so much as a single pawn loan. I swear, I will not be happy until one of those games gives me the ability to eschew combat altogether in favor of sneakiness, bribery, and negotiation mini-games, all the while assisting my friends playing in a more traditional hack and slash style.
The down side is that this would require, well, designing and building each area for what is functionally two different games. You see, game engines are all about positing a single question and letting folks answer that question bunches of different ways. I'm looking for a different question entirely. Is it impossible to make a game like this? Definitely not, but it would be much, much harder than making the same game without the option. Besides, it's not as though there is a very large, untapped market looking for precisely this kind of thing to come out.
It's important to make games that you, yourself, enjoy. But, what I want to do is always way more complicated and expensive than necessary. Which is why I will never be a great game video game designer.
I need to stick to tabletop gaming, where the rules are far more flexible and it's easier to accomodate unconventional goals and play styles.
The down side is that this would require, well, designing and building each area for what is functionally two different games. You see, game engines are all about positing a single question and letting folks answer that question bunches of different ways. I'm looking for a different question entirely. Is it impossible to make a game like this? Definitely not, but it would be much, much harder than making the same game without the option. Besides, it's not as though there is a very large, untapped market looking for precisely this kind of thing to come out.
It's important to make games that you, yourself, enjoy. But, what I want to do is always way more complicated and expensive than necessary. Which is why I will never be a great game video game designer.
I need to stick to tabletop gaming, where the rules are far more flexible and it's easier to accomodate unconventional goals and play styles.
Dear Fundamentalist Preachers...
Please stop.
Pretty please?
I mean, it's not that I really have that deep disagreements with you. I'm rather religious myself and I think I understand your motivations and what not. But it's the methodologies that I disagree with. I mean, do you have to make asses of yourself?
Well, that's probably not the right word. But, I have to say that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. Going on campus and screaming about gays and fornication doesn't exactly get the idea across. You see, in order to get an idea across they actually have to listen and that isn't a way to get most folks to listen. Granted, you might get a couple of people to sign on, but is it really worth it to offend just about everyone else, and making the jobs of everyone else harder?
Am I religious? Yes. Am I Christian? Yes. Do I proselytize? Well, not the way that you do it. Instead I volunteer, help people where I can, and provide accurate information about Christianity where possible. I count that. Do I know if I made a difference? No, because that's between them and God. I don't save people. You don't save people. Salvation is between each individual and God.
So please, PLEASE, get off my lawn and let me do my job.
Pretty please?
I mean, it's not that I really have that deep disagreements with you. I'm rather religious myself and I think I understand your motivations and what not. But it's the methodologies that I disagree with. I mean, do you have to make asses of yourself?
Well, that's probably not the right word. But, I have to say that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. Going on campus and screaming about gays and fornication doesn't exactly get the idea across. You see, in order to get an idea across they actually have to listen and that isn't a way to get most folks to listen. Granted, you might get a couple of people to sign on, but is it really worth it to offend just about everyone else, and making the jobs of everyone else harder?
Am I religious? Yes. Am I Christian? Yes. Do I proselytize? Well, not the way that you do it. Instead I volunteer, help people where I can, and provide accurate information about Christianity where possible. I count that. Do I know if I made a difference? No, because that's between them and God. I don't save people. You don't save people. Salvation is between each individual and God.
So please, PLEASE, get off my lawn and let me do my job.
Only Atheist Politicans?
So, I was reading a little editorial piece over at yahoo. It suggested that only atheists should be politicians. It points out that current theocratic regimes aren't functioning well, that religious issues in the political forum leads to a different set of priorities in debate than what is optimal from a civil perspective, and had some kind of nonsensical commentary about how Christians consider poverty holy and don't want to get rid of it.
I have to vigorously disagree on a wide variety of points. First off, by removing religious individuals you are not going to remove religious topics from the public forum, mostly because those topics are (and should) be determined by the population at large as opposed to simply those who happen to be in Congress. Besides, shouldn't Congress be representative of the the population in any feasible way so that the government generally shares the concern of the people? So what if there's more discussion than simply necessary on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cells? That's not what is gumming up the works in Washington.
Additionally, by removing religious individuals from holding political office you are less safeguarding religion than you are creating an opportunity for activist members of atheistic religions (like LaVeyan Satanism, for example) and those aggressively atheistic individuals who believe that religion in general is dangerous and should be removed. Those people who feel that they know best and all others either agree with them or are wrong are no the unique province of theistic religions, and only by allowing open discussions can we safeguard ourselves from such tyranny.
That being said, finding candidates that are quality yet have that deep psychological need for power required to seek Federal Office are rare enough as it is, what do we really get for ignoring what few good candidates that do exist simply because they happen to also have religious beliefs?
In general, I'm just upset by the lack of thought that went into this piece. It simply doesn't reflect reality. If any group is "best suited" to being a neutral party on this topic it would be agnostics, those who claim that the existence of deities is unknown or unknowable, as opposed to atheists, who are making a belief claim that there is no god. Besides, I have never seen anyone provide compelling reason to say that there is definitively no deity of any sort, but plenty of people have generalized quibbles with one religion or another.
I have to vigorously disagree on a wide variety of points. First off, by removing religious individuals you are not going to remove religious topics from the public forum, mostly because those topics are (and should) be determined by the population at large as opposed to simply those who happen to be in Congress. Besides, shouldn't Congress be representative of the the population in any feasible way so that the government generally shares the concern of the people? So what if there's more discussion than simply necessary on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cells? That's not what is gumming up the works in Washington.
Additionally, by removing religious individuals from holding political office you are less safeguarding religion than you are creating an opportunity for activist members of atheistic religions (like LaVeyan Satanism, for example) and those aggressively atheistic individuals who believe that religion in general is dangerous and should be removed. Those people who feel that they know best and all others either agree with them or are wrong are no the unique province of theistic religions, and only by allowing open discussions can we safeguard ourselves from such tyranny.
That being said, finding candidates that are quality yet have that deep psychological need for power required to seek Federal Office are rare enough as it is, what do we really get for ignoring what few good candidates that do exist simply because they happen to also have religious beliefs?
In general, I'm just upset by the lack of thought that went into this piece. It simply doesn't reflect reality. If any group is "best suited" to being a neutral party on this topic it would be agnostics, those who claim that the existence of deities is unknown or unknowable, as opposed to atheists, who are making a belief claim that there is no god. Besides, I have never seen anyone provide compelling reason to say that there is definitively no deity of any sort, but plenty of people have generalized quibbles with one religion or another.
Occupy Wall Street vs. SOPA Blackout
These are the two defining American protests of the past year or so. I would like to say that one is an excellent example of protest and one is an excellent example of what protest is not. This is important to know and understand because protest is one of the more important tools to force responsiveness from our politicians, and each misuse weakens the impact of protest in general.
I would like to say that Occupy Wall Street, or something like it, was largely inevitable. A lot of people are unhappy about a very specific thing, in this case the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, so they reach for every tool in their possession to do something about it. The issue is that there are two functions to protest. The first they did very well, which is focus the discussion of the community on the topic and raise awareness. They brought together broad coalitions in a handful of locations and forced news focus and passersby. However, the worst financial disaster in almost a century was already a top news story and had already effected almost every one's lives directly. The thing that I feel was the problem was the next bit. The Occupy Wall Street protesters sacrificed the second function of protest, which is to raise awareness and take steps to implement a solution. There was never a unified goal espoused by the Occupiers, there was no solution promoted or even really discussed. There were folks in the Occupy Movement who sought the end of American Capitalism, and others who simply wanted additional funds for start ups and more organized Economic Development Initiatives. In order to maintain the size and attention grabbing nature of the protests those organizers that did exist backed off from this essential function of the debate. As a result, the Movement has slowed and broken up to the point where it no longer commands media attention, and yet no progress to ending the economic problems that spawned the progress has been made that wouldn't have happened anyways.
The websites that engaged in the SOPA Blackout did both forms of debate very effectively. They took an issue that most folks hadn't heard of, a bill in congress that was sailing through the process with bipartisan support mostly because it hadn't yet been examined thoroughly enough, and made it news. Between the witty comments of content producers like The Oatmeal and the temporary loss of essential services such as Wikipedia both news outlets and people who don't normally go looking for news found the information. And what's more, there was a clear cut step that the Blackout websites all promoted, they told people to contact their congressional representatives. People did, and in very large numbers. Before the day was out, several Congressmen who were previously in favor of the bill had withdrawn their support. A few days later legistlation that had been only a matter of time in passing now look almost dead in the water.
The difference is clear, to me at least, in order for protest to be effective in America today there must be that second step. Protest cannot just be used to draw attention to a problem and be allowed to let go at that, protest must also point out a way for us to do something. Problems don't just go away because we complain about them, problems go away because we fix them. When protest ceases to be a catalyst for fixing the problem, then we loose the effectiveness of protest and make things that much more difficult the next time we need protest to both draw attention to a serious problem and provide a method for a solution.
I would like to say that Occupy Wall Street, or something like it, was largely inevitable. A lot of people are unhappy about a very specific thing, in this case the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, so they reach for every tool in their possession to do something about it. The issue is that there are two functions to protest. The first they did very well, which is focus the discussion of the community on the topic and raise awareness. They brought together broad coalitions in a handful of locations and forced news focus and passersby. However, the worst financial disaster in almost a century was already a top news story and had already effected almost every one's lives directly. The thing that I feel was the problem was the next bit. The Occupy Wall Street protesters sacrificed the second function of protest, which is to raise awareness and take steps to implement a solution. There was never a unified goal espoused by the Occupiers, there was no solution promoted or even really discussed. There were folks in the Occupy Movement who sought the end of American Capitalism, and others who simply wanted additional funds for start ups and more organized Economic Development Initiatives. In order to maintain the size and attention grabbing nature of the protests those organizers that did exist backed off from this essential function of the debate. As a result, the Movement has slowed and broken up to the point where it no longer commands media attention, and yet no progress to ending the economic problems that spawned the progress has been made that wouldn't have happened anyways.
The websites that engaged in the SOPA Blackout did both forms of debate very effectively. They took an issue that most folks hadn't heard of, a bill in congress that was sailing through the process with bipartisan support mostly because it hadn't yet been examined thoroughly enough, and made it news. Between the witty comments of content producers like The Oatmeal and the temporary loss of essential services such as Wikipedia both news outlets and people who don't normally go looking for news found the information. And what's more, there was a clear cut step that the Blackout websites all promoted, they told people to contact their congressional representatives. People did, and in very large numbers. Before the day was out, several Congressmen who were previously in favor of the bill had withdrawn their support. A few days later legistlation that had been only a matter of time in passing now look almost dead in the water.
The difference is clear, to me at least, in order for protest to be effective in America today there must be that second step. Protest cannot just be used to draw attention to a problem and be allowed to let go at that, protest must also point out a way for us to do something. Problems don't just go away because we complain about them, problems go away because we fix them. When protest ceases to be a catalyst for fixing the problem, then we loose the effectiveness of protest and make things that much more difficult the next time we need protest to both draw attention to a serious problem and provide a method for a solution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)