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.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
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.
The reason I consider myself conservative...
I do consider myself conservative, at least by American standards. However, many of the issues that are supposed to appeal to conservatives are ones that consistently fail to get me excited. The important thing to note about American politics is that all those thousand and one parties that exist in Parliamentary systems still exist. We just have them organized in formalized alliances where they share a jersey, as opposed to many other countries where they fly their own flag and form temporary and shaky coalitions for a time.
I am not a social conservative. For the life of me, I haven't figured out why I should care if someone is gay or not. Abortion and bans on some contraceptives are, quite frankly, none of my business. These debates are largely nonstarters for me, because they mostly serve as distractions from what I feel that political debate should be. Those who are nominally on my side but are interested altogether too much on these topic make me feel uncomfortable, but are tolerated because I don't have much in the way of a recourse.
So, why do I tend to line up with Republicans and Libertarians more often than Democrats and Greens? Well, I guess it comes down to how I grew up. I was raised on a county line, one was a conservative suburb and the other was a more liberal one. The difference was night and day. On one side of the river the roads were regularly repaved, police response was prompt and effective, the parks were regularly upgraded, and the schools were among the best in the state. On the other, none of these things were true, and one of the most common complaints was about how other parts of the county was receiving all their tax dollars, and how much higher their taxes were than neighboring counties.
I was taught a lot by this continuous experience. Mostly, that government is a tool. It is a really useful one. But that being said, it isn't a perfect one. There are a lot of things that a government just doesn't do as well as a charity, community organization, business, or fraternal organization could do. Passing laws can make a lot of things happen, but passing a law alone is meaningless. A law cannot change reality, but people working to enforce said law can. This is something that I am less certain that Democratic pundits understand, even with very well known examples such as Prohibition.
Still, the reason I am conservative now stems mostly from a single fact. Republican lawmakers at the local level have actually listened to me. They went out of their way to respond and I saw things that I want actually happen, partially as a result of my actions. This has been more than I can say for the Democrats in my life, ultimately if the opposite were true then I would likely be a moderate liberal than a moderate conservative today. I do believe that this is a more common state of affairs nationally, but that assessment is largely based on fact that while SOPA/PIPPA had bipartisan support many more Republicans than Democrats withdrew their support for those bills in response to protest and extensive contact from their constituents.
I am not a social conservative. For the life of me, I haven't figured out why I should care if someone is gay or not. Abortion and bans on some contraceptives are, quite frankly, none of my business. These debates are largely nonstarters for me, because they mostly serve as distractions from what I feel that political debate should be. Those who are nominally on my side but are interested altogether too much on these topic make me feel uncomfortable, but are tolerated because I don't have much in the way of a recourse.
So, why do I tend to line up with Republicans and Libertarians more often than Democrats and Greens? Well, I guess it comes down to how I grew up. I was raised on a county line, one was a conservative suburb and the other was a more liberal one. The difference was night and day. On one side of the river the roads were regularly repaved, police response was prompt and effective, the parks were regularly upgraded, and the schools were among the best in the state. On the other, none of these things were true, and one of the most common complaints was about how other parts of the county was receiving all their tax dollars, and how much higher their taxes were than neighboring counties.
I was taught a lot by this continuous experience. Mostly, that government is a tool. It is a really useful one. But that being said, it isn't a perfect one. There are a lot of things that a government just doesn't do as well as a charity, community organization, business, or fraternal organization could do. Passing laws can make a lot of things happen, but passing a law alone is meaningless. A law cannot change reality, but people working to enforce said law can. This is something that I am less certain that Democratic pundits understand, even with very well known examples such as Prohibition.
Still, the reason I am conservative now stems mostly from a single fact. Republican lawmakers at the local level have actually listened to me. They went out of their way to respond and I saw things that I want actually happen, partially as a result of my actions. This has been more than I can say for the Democrats in my life, ultimately if the opposite were true then I would likely be a moderate liberal than a moderate conservative today. I do believe that this is a more common state of affairs nationally, but that assessment is largely based on fact that while SOPA/PIPPA had bipartisan support many more Republicans than Democrats withdrew their support for those bills in response to protest and extensive contact from their constituents.
Friday, January 20, 2012
In a world where people with strange powers do whatever they want...
I would be a super villain.
I'm serious, in a world where that sort of thing happened and I was one of those people who wound up picking sides then I would have to be a super villain. Let's face it, I'm not main character interesting. I'm plain as white bread, and don't do one liners. Where does that really leave me?
That being said, I'm not a take over the world sort of fellow. That's altogether too much work. As it is, something has to be seriously wrong with you in order to put forth the effort to enter the uppermost levels of politics. You have to be willing to surrender, well, everything not for power but the mere chance at power being elected. I understand going more for a local office, at least then you can still have a job and a home life while have a much greater effect on the area in which you live. After all, good local governance has a massive impact on people's lives even they don't notice normally.
No, I'm not driven by a need for dominance, but I would likely see influence. There's a huge difference between seeking dominance and seeking the power required to achieve a goal. My goal? Probably to drive all other super heroes and villains not otherwise working for me out of town, after all then people can do their own thing without down town being set on fire every Thursday, or having their office building, factory, or house destroyed each month. My premise is that an absence of super heroes and villains would be a vacuum that would be filled quickly, and a hero with such a goal would naturally create a series of personal villains to fight him. The best bet any last peace in town would be to be a villain, those who rise to oppose me would be heroes, or at least anti-heroes. They'd be easier for the city to deal with as collateral damage wouldn't be an easy tool for them.
That being said, I don't think that I really have wonton disregard of life in me, and blowing stuff up just to be evil would self-defeating. So, I guess I'd just have to be nice about being evil. Really, I think that it's a good stratagem to begin with. After all, people who steal a little bit in a very nice way often get away with it for years, if they are caught at all. After all, there's no reason to be balls to the wall evil to begin with, the only thing I have to do in order to a card-carrying villain is simply being an ass to the self-righteous pricks who take it upon themselves to be heroes, and to decline to assist them against common foes. I do believe that would be easy enough.
In a world of super powers, I do believe that I would be a very rare thing. An anti-villain, in that I'm generally a nice, respectful fellow who wants what he believes is best for his community, but clearly defined in opposition to any super heroes who happen to be around. This isn't who I aspire to be, but rather this is what I would have to be in such a world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)