Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

The invisible hand is caught in a reacharound.

Lets see what that invisible hand is up to today | hell's handmaiden: "The story, the day the music died, is a sad tale of corporate shenanagins and consumer pain. Read the article and ask yourself, “Where exactly is that invisible hand in all of this?”

The answer I’d like to propose is that it doesn’t exist. It isn’t there, not in the way that most of your hard right free market proponents need it to be. Ponder. I’m going to leave it at that for now, though if you wondering why I claim to not bash Smith but only the right wing twits who never read him: Smith “made it clear in his writings that quite considerable structure was required in society before the invisible hand mechanism could work efficiently.” The twits tend to forget that ‘considerable social structure’ part and head straight for ‘get the government the hell out of everything’ thus creating what I like to think of as a government so minimal that it stops working."
As I've dryly noted here and there, now and again, I'm a great believer in the free market. And some day I'd like to try it for myself to see how it works.

In fact, Smith was pretty firm on that, that considerable "market intervention" was required to keep the market from being "cornered." Proponents of "lazez-fair" regulation see no problem with that - or apparently milk and gas hitting the four dollar mark.

There can be no individual liberty if we are reduced to slavery in effect by economic means. And that has always been the preferred option - serfs are ever so much easier to maintain than slaves. Worse yet, one has legal obligations toward slaves.

So, as a libertarian, I'm pro choice (as the gag goes, on everything), pro fair trade, pro social justice, pro infrastructure, pro just-big-enough-government and pro REAL , fair and free markets.

The closest thing that we have ever had is the Web, by the by, and you can tell that the Faux Libertarians are doing their damnedest to turn it all into AOHell.

Isn't it odd that in order to be that sort of Libertarian, you have to both deny your own individuality while also denying the possibility that individual definitions of value and reward might apply?

At this point you may wonder why I don't just call myself a Liberal and be done with it. Re-read the above paragraph and substitute the word "liberal."

Having the wrong thing done unto me for the wrong reasons under the delusion that it's possible to meaningfully calculate "the greatest good of the greatest number" in most areas of social policy leads inevitably to the struggle over the right to choose what "blessings" we will receive.

Oddly, it seems that the same people who decry regulation - are all too willing to advise "prudent" intervention when Liberals are in power.


Read more!

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

My hidden agenda is to make you think I have a hidden agenda.

Goddess knows it must seem like I'm wildly concerned with selling you stuff lately. Well, I kinda wish the explanation was the obvious - but obviously, if I were that good at selling shit people didn't really need to buy I would have no time to blog at all.

The point is far closer to this: that in order to do what I should to - blog - I have to pretend to myself that the whole point to it is to sell you crap you don't actually need, while at the same time, making crap that on some level is crap that you actually do need to see, and internalize as a message, whether or not you literally buy it, and indeed, whether or not it's even salable crap.

At this particular point in time, I'm actually drunk enough to say that out loud. I'm not going to actually hit post until I'm sober enough to ensure that veritas is enhanced by vino, but I'm honest enough to know that brutal self-honesty requires a little support from time to time.

That probably sounds like whining - but it's so very not. And therein lies the point.

I am first and foremost a visual thinker. On my best days, I am able to translate my visualizations into words fairly seamlessly. But some days, I need to indulge the thought that there is a "Hidden Agenda," and thereby explain why it is you should relate to the message and/or concept I've squeezed onto a product. In reality, the only thing I've ever needed to hide about my agenda is how badly I suck at hiding it.. :P

Drunk, sober or stoned; I'm afraid with me that what you see is what you get. It takes a great deal of ethanol to overcome my training to dissemble, to imply there is something unspecified and attractive hiding in the depths, to cater to your inexplicable neurotypical belief that every human motive is really cloaked in the the semblance of moral rectitude.

No, with me, the real deception has always been this - the learned practice of implying that there is a hidden, deeper motive to what it is that I do. In particular, I've learned that it's far more acceptable to have an apparently poorly concealed motive to make a relatively honest buck at your expense than to admit the fact that money itself is a damn poor motivator for me.

Understanding as I do that for most people, money IS important, and that it translates well to applause, I can start to ask for value for value fpr that which I do that I consider valuable.

But I will tell you something right now that I suspect strongly applies to all artistic personalities (or there would be no market for agents) - the idea of an artistic work of mine being inherently valuable is not just alien, it's frightening.

You see, like most children, I desperately wanted to do the things my parents did. And my father was an Irish traveling salesmen. No, wait, it gets better - he was a disabled, NORTHERN Irish traveling, RACIST salesman.

How did he get disabled? The official stories vary, from jumping off a load of plywood and landing the wrong way to far too many years driving a jeep too fast over dirt roads.

Me, I think he said the wrong thing to the wrong people thinking that he was safe saying it because of a similarity of skin color, or a common interest in other bigotries - and got the crap beat out of him. Goddess knows there were ten thousand times the thought occurred to me and in point of fact, I never actually met anyone who met him twice that looked forward to the third time.

Well, you might imagine how well emulating my father worked out for me. To give me credit, I never even tried to emulate his social skills. But, to underline my lack of clue - it never once occurred to me that social skills were what it took to sell things to people who could do without those things. Looking back my father was a salesman in the way I'm a writer and an artist, an intuitive genius.

...yeah, I know how that sounds. Bear with me for a moment, it's not the brag it you might think it is. And my point is that he could not "pass on his trade" any more than than I could.

In my experience, "genius" always involves a trade-off. Some brains, some people, some minds are just more specialized than others, and when they are digging into their best thing, they are of course seen as brilliant. Even if they can't manage basic hygiene, or figure out how to match their socks.

People, like my father and like myself, need to realize that they need other people who are neither blessed nor afflicted with that spark of genius - because whether it is a blessing or an affliction really is not largely up to us.

You see, I'm not neurotypical. Neither was my father. I'm a multiple personality and an autistic or if you prefer, an artist - and my father was, depending on what terms you prefer, a sociopath or a salesman.

People like me and my father are far more dependent than we would like to pretend on the quality and the advice of our enablers.

You know how I know that?

Let me introduce you to my mother.

And at this point, let me tell you something. I do "honor my mother and father." Like most folks do, they did the best they could with the tools at hand, according to the customs and assumptions of the day. Unfortunately for them, neither of them was the sort of person for which the customs and assumptions of the day would lead to good results for me. Both would have been better off as unmarried, child-free "free thinkers."

Neither of them could or would make that leap. And it does neither of them any honor at all to pretend they were any good at trying to be what they were not, or pretend that they should have tried in the first place, even though that trial resulted in Yours Truly.

I'd like to take credit for the moral fortitude of my own choices - but I'm afraid that like most folks and certainly my parents, the majority of my moral fortitude is revisionist hindsight; one part rebellion, two parts incapacity, three parts ex post facto rationalization of things that worked out well despite best parental advice.

You see, my mother was a photographer and an adventurer who's courage failed. I grew up being bored and unintentionally inspired by the photos she took while being a courageous free spirit in post-war Japan. But, she was female, and she thought that mattered more than her talents or muse.

But perhaps even more importantly was the fact that she was NOT a teacher. She was an adventurer, a free spirit, a "not teacher" born into a family of really amazingly good intuitive teachers. Alas, that is also a calling that far too many think of as a profession or a trade. In a sense, it's true. Many people can overcome a lack of native ability by training, in the same way that one may not be born to be a seal, but can learn to swim.

My mother was capable of teaching in exactly the same way that a cat is capable of swimming.

But ultimately, her family thought that becoming a teacher was a safer and more rational choice than exploring that which she actually was. I am, in large part, the product of her regrets, and that is which I honor. Had she followed her muse and her real nature, I doubt very much that I would have been born at all. She certainly would not have married my father. In all honesty, I suspect that her sexuality was as lesbian as it gets. Apparently even lesbians marry their daddies if they are forced to pick a man, just as men tend to marry their mommies, if the same applies.

You see, her father was a traveling salesman, who, having realized his mistake, rarely came home. What a rude shock it must have been, then, for my father to spend most of his marriage with her living on bile and disability. (Note illustration.)

You see, each of us are the sum of every bit of luck and every choice of every ancestor we have, unto the seventh generation. It is amazing to me how many people read the Bible religiously - as did my mother - and the more religiously they take it, the more wildly they miss the point.

In point of fact and experience, the Christian Bible, and in exactly the same way, the sacred texts of all other religious traditions, are the distilled common sense of those who learned the hard way, and you, as the reader, have to understand that in order to profit from it. For not only does it matter that these people "know better" than you do, it also matters WHY.

And for that matter, unless you have been in the anaougous shoes of the people who write scripture, it's not that easy to intuitively discern that "why" part.

Let me give you an example; "Saul of Taris." As much as we know about Saul, or as he was later known, Paul, most of what we should understand remains unspoken, in large part because Paul himself took it for granted.

Saul, you see, was a jew. But he was also a Roman Citizen and a tax collector. There are very few tax collectors who make even the slightest ripple in history, much less create large bodies of art, scripture or literature. In all probability, Saul of Tarsus was a tax collector even as was his father before him. The problem was, Saul was not born to be a tax collector; he had either a lack of the proper inclinations and skills, too much empathy, or somehow his sexuality (which many presume to be gay, though I'm only willing to go as far as "not ordinarily heterosexual") collided in some hideous and personally unresolvable way with his sense of self.

Been there, done that, MADE the T-Shirt!

Paul one of the most hideous and best recorded nervous breakdowns in all of history. Fortunately for him. Unfortunately for us, he spent the rest of his life trying to explain and or blame that breakdown as being the fault and/or responsibility of other people.

If prophets were perfect people, they'd never be foolish enough to be in that position in the first place.

The thing to learn from Paul is NOT what he thinks you should do - but rather to learn the things you should avoid in order to not suffer as Paul did. Paul himself did not understand that, even giving an extraordinarily sharp mind, so we may all forgive ourselves for being a little unclear on that point ourselves. Aside from that, as my entire life history attests, knowing what does NOT work is not a great deal of help in knowing what will work.

Save, of course, at times like this.

There are cusps and moments in history where everything is going to change and no common-sense assumption based on history or tradition (absent a full understanding of the reasons for making that rule of thumb in the first place ) will work. While human nature will guide the outcome in all cases, we as human beings seem to have little ability to understand our own nature or the governing needs and drives of others; most especially in the cases where the underlying, unstated and unconscious natures of other persons differ from our own.

Right now in these times, as Alvin Toffler's worst nightmares come true in our laps, wallets and personal lives, knowing what used to work is a somewhat useless thing. The only reliable guide is the ability to usefully extrapolate from a negative result, because the only thing that can be predicted as the rate of change goes vertical is that whatever works right now will probably not work tomorrow, with an increasingly short window of opportunity for any workable solution.

By preference and inclination, I'm a Conservative - but in practice and of necessity I've had to apply my conservatism to ideas and approaches that seem wildly radical to any person not so blessed as I with such a mixture of functional distinction and practical wisdom.

I don't think of myself as being therefore wiser than the average bear, nor do I "look down upon" most folks. But I am increasingly thinking of myself as a niche commodity with increasing application.

And thank you, my dear readers, for your support. :P


Read more!

Saturday, April 26, 2008

My Deep Purple Dream

Deep Purple Dream Bumper Sticker bumpersticker

In each party, there is a race between candidates that represent the best and the worst of each party. On the Democratic side, people have this idea that a "dream ticket" would be both leading candidates. They don't share that dream - nor do I.

On the Republican side - well, mostly the dreams are dead, save for the guttering spark of Ron Paul's candadacy and the flaming stupidity that is the McCain campain. 100 years of war? I don't see that as a great issue to be running on, unless you are trying to corner the Stupid White Male with Very Small Penis vote. I hope that's a smaller constituancy than McCain's advisors seem to think.

I say we put the best of each in charge. I say this because it will make inside-ball ideologues explode with righteous indignation. I really like that image...




Read more!

Sunday, April 13, 2008

I Am Kathleen Seidel

If you are an aspie, an autie, a blogger or just an informed citizen with a desire to inform the public about an issue you are familiar with against the wishes of some powerful interests, then the SLAPP supoena against Kathleen Seidel and her site, Neurodiversity, might as well have been aimed at you.

Yes, I'm on about this again. And about Zazzle. So it's doubly annoying - but what part of "aspie" was unclear to you?

Therefore, I'm suggesting that all interested parties express their interest. The idea came from discussion at Aspies for Freedom, who suggested we take a hint from the classic movie "Sparticus," declaring "I Am Kathleen Seidel" for reasons parallel to the reasons captured slaves stood up to declare "I Am Sparticus."

How about an I am Spartacus type thing with loads of people buying up domain names I-am-Kathleen-Seidel-1.com, I-am-Kathleen-Seidel-2.com, I-am-Kathleen-Seidel-3.com, I-am-Kathleen-Seidel-4.com, I-am-Kathleen-Seidel-5.com, I-am-Kathleen-Seidel-6.com, etc etc etc etc etc etc?
That's a great idea, well worth doing and I wish I could afford to. If you do it, you don't need to create a whole new blog - just alias the url to your own blog. I use godaddy.com, and it takes just a few minutes to do, and a couple more to go live, typically. Pretty painless.

The precedent of permitting this action against Seidel by a firm that stands to profit greatly should she and other contrary voices be silenced should be every bit as worrying to "pro cure" activists. Consider what happens if this action works.

There are a LOT of deep pockets on all sides here. And while it seems wildly improbable that Merck or Bayer is funding Seidel, it's certain that if it becomes needful to keep people who support their view of the evidence online, they will be forced to do so. And then the bullshit will really pile up, and I suggest that to refer to that as "counterproductive" would be rather an understatement.

This is not about supporting what Kathleen has to say. This is about her right and YOUR right to share an informed, supportable opinion in public without fear of frivolous and abusive litigation aimed at shutting you up. Now, one part of the SLAPP subpoena was to try and get Kathleen to cough up all correspondence to everyone on her blogroll, and any related documentation about her relationship to them. It was literally aimed at everyone who'd ever linked to her and could even be read as aimed at anyone who's IP address showed up in her logs.

So, yes, YOU are Kathleen Seidel. I am Kathleen Seidel. We are all Kathleen Seidel. So put the graphic on your blog, or make your own. Make a t-shirt if you walk about in public (kind of pointless for me to do that, but obviously it's going onto my blog.)

Seriously though, I'm not asking you to buy this. If you do - since for some reason I cannot set a zero profit - I'm going to send the proceeds to Kathleen anyhow, but I ask you to send her five bucks via the donation button in her right sidebar.

Now, we are going to do a little tutorial on how to link to this and use it purely as a blog graphic (with proper credit) even if you are morally opposed to my sort of semi-successful capitalist piggery.

First - observe the deliberate choice of model and shirt color. You see, when people click thru, they have their choice with this particular design - they can link to the "product image" - as shown in this case - or they can link to the design. And with a white t-shirt, it ends up looking like this:

Now, mouse over that. There's no affiliate link there, at all. Why?

Well, it's because Zazzle provides a naked image code for you to use, in case your platform doesn't like embedding the full html link, or what-have you. Go to the product page, and look for "link to this" - it will summon a popup, so you have to permit that, and that popup contains all the link codes.

You can of course download the graphic from that link if you like.

There's a catch, of course. You must have registered with Zazzle to be an affiliate in order to get these codes. (Absent me handing them out, to be sure.) Ideally, you will set up your own store. But there are serious advantages to this - not the least of which being that it allows you to create a blog graphic as good as this with licensed type fonts in less then twenty minutes, on the fly. If it's a compelling design, you might just sell a few. My "No whining" graphic does quite well, but that is beside the point here. What you are setting up is a graphic that is keyworded and categorized to link to an issue. It will start appearing in Google Image searches, and if you use it in a post - that graphic will refer to your post, not to the Google-discounted sales page. I'm not sure if that's true if you use MY product image, so I would actually suggest that you take the time to set up a Zazzle store of your own. I find it incredibly handy as a way of combining graphics and text quickly, without having to be on any particular computer.

And if I don't happen to have time to do that, I just have to do a quick search to have my choice of images. For instance - keyword "Diversity" results in a ton of images, all neatly set up for me to use. I always use the full html, and then try to remember to kick the text link down to the bottom of the post as a credit line. It's only fair, remember you are getting the use of some dazzlingly expert images (see diversity.) And if you are looking for horrible counterexamples - well, you can show the "other side" without linking to 'em, because of the "image only" code capability.

It would be great if Kathleen Siedel was an equally broad category. And don't forget SLAPP and "Clifford Shoemaker"

Credit: Illustrations above: I am Kathleen Seidel - Onsie by webcarve

And here's another:


Read more!

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Department of Justice Policy "No Fags or Democrats Allowed"

At points like this, it's kinda apt to remember that phrase - attribution forgotten, paraphrase probable - "A black man to vote for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders."

That applies to the sweet corn and baked beans, too.

Crooks and Liars » At DoJ, being gay is ‘even worse than being a Democrat’: "Justice Department e-mails obtained by NPR show that Gonzales’s senior counsel Monica Goodling had a particular interest in Hagen’s duties. A few months before Hagen was let go, according to one e-mail, Goodling removed part of Hagen’s job portfolio — the part dealing with child exploitation and abuse. […]

[B]y all accounts, Hagen was a GOP loyalist. So, what was Goodling’s problem with Hagen?

The Justice Department’s inspector general is looking into whether Hagen was dismissed after a rumor reached Goodling that Hagen is a lesbian. As one Republican source put it, “To some people, that’s even worse than being a Democrat.”"
Of course, the stunning irony of Goodling's overt civil rights violations is unapparent to most Repugnances. (I use the term now to distinguish between Goodling's sort of psudostalinist toady and actual decent, upright ethical citizens of rightward bent.)

Even now, it seems to escape the peroxide brained Goodlingoids that if loyalty is valued over competant performance, all you will get is incompetant loyalists, and worse yet, those who's only competance is pretending to be loyal.

The extremely competent (purportedly) Democratic (rumored to be) uber-dyke will be on the other side of the argument, and she will be wearing MUCH better shoes.

As C&L observed, squabbles 'twixt two superbly qualified candidates are a lot easier to tolerate in the light of routine fuckuppetry from the Other Side.

If you were thinking of voting for McCain, anyhow - remember how little he would be able to do about getting rid of all the carpetbagging douche-bags, con-men and frauds appointed to critical positions for reasons completely unrelated to their qualifications. (Unless you count baksheesh and sucking up to be qualifications.)

Someone is going to have to put the whole government infrastructure back into running order, and the only people who will have the political capital to do that would be a Democrat.

Me, the thought of Hillary being given the post of Attorney General and a cast-iron broom handle just amuses the hell outta me. I can hear the quiet rustle of terrified testicles retracting all over DC just thinking of that happy day.

Not that she'd have to abuse her position to target political enemies. Nope. It pretty much looks like just doing her job would eliminate the vast bulk of them.

So there's another reason to vote for Obama. I want Hillary to be the Red Lensman in this storyline.


Read more!

Monday, March 31, 2008

Nobody's Life, Liberty or Property...

"...Is safe while congress is in session."

Forwarded to me with the request that I pass it on. Which I surely will do.

http://blog.absolutearts.com/

From: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com
Subject: "Promoting" Orphan Works
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:28:51 -0400

FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP

Yesterday ( Thurs. Mar. 13, 08) the House subcommittee on Intellectual
Property held their first hearing on new Orphan Works legislation.
Note the title:

"Hearing on Promoting the Use of Orphan Works: Balancing the Interests
of Copyright Owners and Users"

http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427
Balance, however doesn't seem to be part of the Orphan Works
juggernaut. Indeed, after this hearing, we can no longer assume that
the U.S. Copyright Office is an advocate for the protection of
creators' rights. As they wrote on page 14 of their original Orphan
Works Report:

"If our recommendation resolves users' concerns in a satisfactory way,
it will likely be a comprehensive solution to the orphan works
situation." (our emphasis)

But how can any copyright law be "comprehensive" if it makes millions
of copyrights, no matter how valuable, available to users, no matter
how worthy, under a system that would introduce permanent uncertainty
into the business lives of creators?

Private Sector Registries

Since the last bill died in committee in 2006, the advocates of this
legislation have promoted the creation of private commercial
registries. On January 29, 2007, a lead attorney for the Copyright
Office warned us that under their plan any work not registered with a
private sector registry would be a potential orphan from the moment it
was created.

This means you would not only have to register your published work,
but also:

— Every sketch or note on every page of every sketchbook;
— Every sketch you send to every client;
— Every photograph you take anywhere, anytime, including family
photos, home videos, etc.;
— Every letter, email, etc., professional, personal or private.

This Would End Passive Copyright Protection: Under existing law the
total creative output of any "creator" receives passive copyright
protection from the moment you create it. This covers everything from
the published work of professional artists to the unpublished diaries,
letters and family photos of the average citizen.

But under the Orphan Works proposal, none of this material would be
covered unless the creator took active steps to register and maintain
coverage with a commercial registry. Failure to do so would "signal"
to infringers that you have no interest in protecting the work.

The Registration Paradox: By conceding that their proposals would make
potential orphans of any unregistered works, the Copyright Office
proposals would lead to a registration paradox: In order to "protect"
work from exposure to infringement, creators would have to expose it
on a publicly searchable registry. This would:

— Expose creative work to plagiarists and derivative abusers;
— Expose trade secrets and unused sketches to competitors;
— Expose unpublished and private correspondence to the public on the
Orwellian premise that you must expose it to "protect" it.

Yet registries will not be able to monitor infringements nor enforce
copyright compliance. Even after you've shelled out "protection money"
to a commercial registry to register hundreds of thousands of works,
you still won't be protected. A registry would do nothing more than
give you a piece of paper. You would still have to monitor
infringements - which can occur anytime anywhere in the world; then
embark on an uncertain quest to find the infringer, file a case in
Federal court, then prove that the infringer has removed your name or
other identifying information from your work. Meanwhile all the
infringer will have to do is say there was no such information on the
work when he found it and assert an orphan works defense. This will be
the end result of trying to "resolve the users' concerns" at the
expense of time-tested copyright law.

Coerced registration violates the spirit and letter of international
copyright law and copyright-related treaties. And because this bill
would effectively eliminate the passive copyright protection afforded
personal correspondence, family photos, etc. it would tear one more
slender thread of privacy protection from the fabric of fundamental
rights we currently take for granted.

We urge Congress to carefully reconsider the unintended consequences
of this radical copyright proposal.

— Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators'
Partnership

Please post or forward this email in its entirety to any interested party
For additional information about Orphan Works developments, go to the
IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists
www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185
I suggest that you contact your representatives immediately with your concerns about this matter. This is the worst sort of "privatization," where a real and useful service is replaced by a money-making scheme that will do less, cost far more, and bury every individual and small business that has any intellectual property under a snowstorm of probably quite useless paperwork, while giving all the "passive compliance" advantages to potential data thieves.

Under this law, Pepsi could replicate Coke and every single frame from every single film will have to be individually protected - for a fee.

Frankly, I think the very idea is obviously corrupt. Certainly it is practically impossible for individual creators or small businesses to adequately protect their works - since there's no possible way for them to afford to prosecute offenders. Recovery, you see, is capped.

The obvious remedy would be for the US entertainment industry to relocate north or south of the border, where the Berne Copyright Convention would still apply, and US commercial and constitutional law would require it's enforcement. Same for small creators, who could incorporate in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else with an online application form.

And of course, at that point, well, actual relocation seems probable - given the very portability of the digital arts themselves and the communications capability of the web. For myself, I could live and work anywhere with a high-speed internet connection, and I'm starting to become rather indifferent to patriotic appeals, considering the rising cost of patriotism these days.

I would find it much easier to be patriotic about a homeland in which my home and livelihood were actually secured by my taxes, rather than made available to the highest bidder by people my tax dollars pay for.


Read more!

Monday, March 17, 2008

Presumed Profitable - Private Justice a Public Scandal.

Viewing with alarm - ten years behind the curve.

America Behind Bars: Why Attempts at Prison Reform Keep Failing

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet. Posted March 5, 2008.

In its 2005 annual report, the Corrections Corporation of America laid out what's at stake for a prison industry facing reform:

Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities ... The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws.
... Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some nonviolent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release ... Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on probation with electronic monitors who would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.

The reforms described by the rather alarmed-sounding CCA mirror those that Pew and other advocates herald as a way to curb the growing prison crisis -- and it appears that lawmakers are finally willing to hear them. "What we're seeing is state leaders around the country starting to call time out," said Pew researcher Susan K. Urahn during the Post's online chat. "We are seeing activity in several states where legislators from both parties are saying, 'We aren't getting our money's worth out of prisons.'" So, for example, "for the same amount of money, you could keep one inmate behind bars for an additional year, or you could provide treatment and intensive supervision for several others -- and cut the recidivism rate considerably." But who will provide treatment -- and how about those electric monitors? Like prison construction itself, prison "reform" will largely amount to trading in one set of services for another.

There's more...

Others continue to defend the sweeping policies that got us here in the first place. "The fact that we have a large prison population by itself is not a central problem because it has contributed to the extraordinary increase in public safety we have had in this country," conservative sociologist James Q. Wilson told the Washington Post. Hardly unbiased criticism, given that Wilson was one of the intellectual engines behind the "broken windows" theory that helped get us into this mess. (And tell that to black or Latino families who experience the criminal justice system's harshest excesses -- from children growing up without their parents to parents paying crippling phone fees to reach their children. Or tell that to now-elderly prisoners living out their final days behind bars, whose threat to society is negligible and whose failing health makes them highly vulnerable -- and hugely expensive to care for.)

I often refer to the Republican theory of public policy as "The Bigger Hammer Approach." That is to say, if a problem exists, apply force until the problem is many thousands of finely distributed problems that must be dealt with by local authority or, of course provide an opportunity for "private enterprise."

Occasionally that may work, though I'll be damned if I can think of an example, but not when the problem is inherently toxic.

This approach, conflated with Regan Republican's mindless adoration of privatizing anything that isn't nailed down, and certainly anything that can be unbolted and shifted with a crane leads us to absurd situations, wherein reducing recidivism is the last thing on a prison administrator's mind.

We have to remember that while crime is harmful to individuals, it is also harmful to society as a whole. The peace and well-being of society is a Commons, one that it is, inarguably, the most fundamental duty of government to preserve - even at the expense of ideological purity.

We currently find ourselves with far too many people in jail, to the extent that it is symptomatic of a society at war with it's own people, rather than of any particular culture of meaningful lawlessness. The statistics speak for themselves; the overwhelming majority of persons in prison are there for non-violent drug offenses, often for life without parole.

On the other hand, kill someone and you might find yourself out on parole in as little as six years.
Especially if you happen to be white. Did I mention that the majority of persons in prison for all offenses are black or otherwise Non-White?

Well, such blatant contempt for the Equal Justice clause causes widespread disrespect for the law itself; it creates a situation where a large portion of the American people feel that the government is, in fact, at war with them. And with the rhetoric of The War on Drugs and the War on Crime, it's difficult to say "don't take it personally, it's just politics."

It is intensely personal and it's a particularly cynical and corrupt sort of political exploitation of people and their tolerance.

We have left the courts far to little discretion in sentencing and diversion, we treat drug addiction like a crime (and assume that everyone who uses opiates is a criminal unless they are writhing in agony at the moment of accusation ) and we are, bizarrely enough, willing to incarcerate someone for life at thirty grand per year, per bed, rather than five grand per bed per year for drug treatment. Even if they NEVER get clean and sober, even if they never leave, it's still a better deal for the taxpayers.

And you see, here's the thing people don't seem to understand: if I pay taxes to fund an institution, it's not entirely a private institution, is it? Indeed, it's doing what a public institution would. Perhaps it's cheaper, but unless Joe Taxpayer can look at the books, we don't know how they manage that, and we do know that the results are contrary to promise.

There's another point as well. Whether or not a fee for service goes to a government or private agency, if it's effectively mandatory, in order to do personal or public business, it is a tax. And as taxpayers, we have the right to expect a reasonable return on investment. When 1 in a hundred citizens are in jail - well, that's a huge blow, in lost earnings, in lost revenue and in human life. It's appalling. And appallingly stupid.

I think it no coincidice that it's a plan much loved by socially conservatives, who are willing to pay any price ( while, of course, not touching personal capital ) to ensure that their lifestyle and their comforts and their secure enclaves remain unbesmirched by productive citizens of middle to lower classes and, of course, of dusky hues and questionable politics.

But such arrogance and misrule on behalf of very few at the expense of the great majority and at the expense of the ruin of ten percent of the entire population causes anyone who cannot casually afford a cigarette boat out of pocket change to contemplate a brutal political calculus.

The wealthy argue that no progress would be possible without concentrations of capital - and indeed, that's an arguemnt with great and obvious merit. But the same concentrations of capital may be used as brutal weapons against progress. And for every Burt Rutan, for every Richard Branson, for every Dyson and Dean Kamen, there is at least one Peter Coors or Paris Hilton.

Capital concentrations are only one aspect of progress, and the web has proven it possible via the Dean and Paul Campaigns and in many other ways, to get individuals to pool small sums and make large, targeted impacts. It's also possible for the web to serve the same infrastructural and organizing purpose as large companies, governments and foundations, with greater efficiency, transparently and security.

The thing to remember here is that - and I pause at this leftist-sounding rhetoric, but it's obviously true in this case - the rich are indeed exploiting the working classes in order to create wealth. Which, historically, is ok, as long as it's done with some sense of reciprocity.

But it's clear they feel their grip slipping. Over the last two or three decades, even as the worship of wealth and greed and the lifestyles of the rich and famous has become an industry in itself, simple tools have expanded the ability for individuals of no particular means to build their own enterprises - everything from dotcoms to fast food chains to publishing empires. The actual cost of doing business has plummeted - and by the by, that's true both for "legitimate" and "criminal" enterprises alike.

It would behoove us, then, to concentrate on realigning our idea of "legitimate" and "criminal" with basic moral, constitutional and libertarian ideas of "right and wrong," the ones that relate to actual harm done to actual persons.

Or in other words, it's utterly bizarre that trafficking in pot is illegal when trafficking in oxycontin is not, if you have a patent or a license. Furthermore, even if pot WERE legal, it would be absurd to expect congress to create a protected market with price supports, so that medical marijuana users had to pay a premium for something they could grow in their back yard.

There are clear and obvious ethical problems with our drug and crime policies, and the thing about ethical problems is that "whatcha gonna do about it" is not a viable approach to dealing with it. Certainly, government has the power to enact laws, and people to enforce them - but in order to achieve any meaningful end that seems just to the majority of the citizenry, laws must have ethical intents and outcomes and they must be respected by the citizenry as being useful as well as well-intentioned.

Otherwise, the law will be recognized only in the breech, and if respected to any extent, via lip service at parole hearings.

And that, I would submit to you, is the present case - and a case that exactly to the taste of the prison industry.


Read more!

Friday, March 14, 2008

When you lie down with dogs...

...sometimes the pooch screws you!

NRCC Says Ex-Treasurer Diverted Up to $1 Million - washingtonpost.com

For at least four years, Christopher J. Ward, who is under investigation by the FBI, allegedly used wire transfers to funnel money out of NRCC coffers and into other political committee accounts he controlled as treasurer, NRCC leaders and lawyers said in their first public statement since they turned the matter over to the FBI six weeks ago.

"The evidence we have today indicated we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the NRCC chairman.

Well of course. The ethics of a war on false pretenses didn't bother anyone much at the NRCC. They have never had an issue with "signing statements," or validating torture, or gerrymandering Texas, or blowing out a whole CIA intelligence network for partisan reasons, rigging national and local elections, well, I could go on. But this, THIS is dishonest!

Gee whiz, when you solicit people whom you know to be unethical enough to participate knowingly and willingly in acts that are variously illegal, immoral, indecent and unethical, doesn't it seem just possible that they might be less than totally trustworthy?

Has NO-one in the Republican Party learned from that simple morality tale called "The Sting?" EG, you can't cheat an honest man?

That, of course, makes the Republican Party (and any registered Republican) target one for every grifter, confidence artist and multi-level marketing scammer out there. Aside from the outright thieves such as this, of course.


Read more!

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

"Client Nine" on Zazzle...

I went to tell Lionel (of the lionel show on Air America) that he'd inspired me. And, you know, maybe get some free bennies.

Well, looks like I ain't the first.

But neither am I the most obvious, or least erudite.


create & buy custom products at Zazzle


Read more!

Pot. Kettle. Rove.





I've always felt that if you need a solid viewpoint on a position that requires professional insight, you should go to a professional. Well, when speaking of positions found in the Kama Sutra there is no finer pro than Susie Bright, and she of course has a very professional analysis of the Spitzer Scandal.

Pride Goeth Before Client #9

Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York, who became famous prosecuting Wall Street crooks, has been caught on a federal wiretap, making arrangements with a high-priced prostitute.

The pro, named Kristen, called her booker after her session with Eliot to confirm that all had gone well. She said she didn't find Spitzer "difficult,"€ as some of the other girls had complained.

The booker replied to her that "Client 9," as Eliot was called, was known to ask the women "€œto do things that, like, you might not think were safe."

Aside from the kinky slap to his Mr. Clean reputation, Spitzer is also facing legal jeopardy, since, among other things, the feds are hitting him with the Mann Act, a 1910 prostitution law designed to crack down on interstate "white slavery."

And as they say on Fark: "Hilarity Ensues." First Suzie has a few rings on the gong, and then her readers chime in. I won't spoil it- it's best enjoyed in it's compellingly NSFW context.

Oh, maybe just ONE more little nibble:

If we could give a truth serum to all the parties involved—€” or wiretap their personal diaries— here's what we might listen in on:

The $4,300 an Hour Prostitute:

Well, first of all, I got less than half of that, and my manicurist charges almost as much.

The Wife:

There's not a political wife alive who's been schtupped by her own husband in years. If you want a career as a high profile spouse, you can kiss your sex life goodbye.

The John/Governor:

Those sons of bitches. I know who did this, and I'll destroy them if it's the last thing I do.

The Escort Service Booker:

There's a couple dozen high end joints like us operating at any time to service the Pol crowd, and we just can't charge enough. Once they start ratting out each other, they'll mess us over so bad there'll be forty people filing bankruptcy as a result of their bullshit.

Did I mention that I like Susie Bright a lot?

She's had a lot to say about previous scandals of this sort, all of it compelling, insightful and wickedly pointed. But as amusing it is to see an arrant hypocrite hoist upon his own crusader's petard, it's really "Dog bites Man."

But, thanks to Susie, I was directed to this article on BoingBoing:

"I'm the proud owner of Karl Rove’s father’s solid gold cock ring."

You know, that might well be the most compelling headline of the decade.

Shannon Larratt, founder of the body modification online publication BMEzine, pointed us a few days ago to a first-person essay that a person named Yard[D]og was writing, regarding the adoptive father of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove (shown in the image at left). Yard[D]og claims to have been a close personal friend of the now-deceased elder Rove.


I've also had occasion to exchange emails with Shannon over the years, and there's nothing in my interactions that would cause me to either doubt his word or think that this might be concocted. [BK]

And now I wondered if that son ever cried for the man who raised him and watched him grow up? I’d be curious as to how Karl Rove would ever explain his pierced, gay father? He never told the people in Louis’ phone book that he had died, nor invited them to a service if there was one. No one even knows where he is buried.

As for me? Well, I am the proud owner of Karl Rove’s father’s pure, solid gold cock ring! I’ve put it away with a few memories and pictures of his father. And in my garden grows a nasty, prickly little cactus from Louie’s backyard ... alive and well.

- - - - - - - -

Link to full text. NSFW advisory: Contains links to photographs of pierced genitals said to those of Karl Rove's father, with a "modesty mosaic" imposed over the thumbnail images at that main link.


Well, now; that explains a lot, don't it? Oh, and Karl was raised in Sparks, Nev, just for that local interest angle.

I've always thought that Karl was a little bit "queer" myself. Not in the way his dad was, but in the sense of being ooozingly, off-puttingly not quite right. In the old sense, before the word came to be a synonym for homosexuality, one connotation was the sort of person that caused you to wipe your hand on your pants-leg after shaking their hand.

And oddly enough, Karl is the exact sort that would like you to confuse those terms, with the sort of pasty phiz you see in sex-offender registries.

So, with that unpleasant but entirely too plausible association in mind, let us now observe that Glenn Greenwald is wondering aloud if this might be the result of a politically motivated "sting" by the Department of Justice.

Is it really the case that any elected official who ever breaks the law should be righteously condemned by all decent people and then forced from office -- without regard to how serious the offense is or whether there are even any victims? If so, I don't think there are going to be very many elected officials left.
I believe that's one of them Rhetorical Questions.

I'm minded how easy it was for Larry Flindt to scare up awkward details on people howling for Clinton's head during the Lewinski matter. The odds are very good that if there is any political figure of any party that you would like to pressure or put out to pasture, that you will be able to find dirt enough to do it. The only requirement, of course, is that you somehow believe that "sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander."

Glenn points to a damn fine Harper's take on this and in a later update heaves a nod toward firedoglake.


UPDATE II: Harper's Scott Horton, one of the country's foremost experts on the Bush DOJ's overtly political prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, compiles numerous additional questions regarding this quite unusual, massive federal law enforcement effort directed at a small prostitution ring that just so happens to have had Democratic New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer as a client (leading, in turn, to the disclosure of all sorts of salacious details in the "Client-9" paragraphs of the Complaint having no bearing whatsoever on the actual criminal issues).

It will be difficult for the questions Horton raises to attract much attention given all of the fun, titillating details concerning Spitzer's sexual activities which are already preoccupying so many, to say nothing of the invigorating charge that comes from being part of an upstanding mob so righteously condemning the private lives of others. But the issues Horton raises are of far greater significance than how Eliot Spitzer and other consenting adults chose to spend their time with one another.

UPDATE III: Jane Hamsher is asking similar and additional questions about this very odd prosecution.


That, of course, would be the sort of operation we have come to describe in the Blogosphere as being "Rovian."

In light of all of this, I think it's pretty obvious exactly what precise national security imperative drives the White House toward insisting on the need to be able to listen to our phone-calls or mine your data without so much as a warrant or a by-your-leave.

Their idea of "national security" is a permanent Republican majority, if not in name, than in effect. Odd, is it not, how so many Democrats failed so frequently to frustrate such obvious abuses of power by George Bush and his cronies?

This may well be intended as an object lesson as to what happens to people who poke their noses into Republican business.

But I wonder what a decent investigative reporter could dig up on major Republican figures - given a few grand for expenses?

Illustration: Could I be your Yoko Ono, Number Nine? T-Shirt by webcarve Get this custom shirt at Zazzle


Read more!

Entreprenurial Capitalists think Republican Bloggers are stupid.

At least stupid enough, statistically, to make a phishing trip profitable.

Here's the pitch:


Greetings,

You are receiving this e-mail because we came across your listing on Google and thought you might be interested in our website. Our website is called 'DeeperRight.com' and it has been developed as a community and marketplace for merchants, website owners and bloggers with related content and products to promote themselves for Free. We have no intentions of ever charging for this service.

In addition, posted content and products will be eligible for our community Newsletter (shown below) at no cost. If you are interested, please post your website, blog, or product at http://DeeperRight.com.

If you are not interested, thank you for taking the time to consider our service, you do not have to unsubscribe. This e-mail will not be repeated and is only a courtesy mail to let you know about this new service.

Once again, this service is Free and we have no plans to ever charge for this service. We simply want to make sure that our community knows about sites like yours.

Cheers,
A.J.
Community Moderator
DeeperRight.com Community Development


Clearly, the work of a robot programmed by someone who has not yet learned that Libertarian is not a sort of Republican and may or may not be a sort of Conservative.

So, what the heck, I figured I'd check it out. It's a spam farm, of course. And it seems to be run by the same people that run e-shirts.com, apparent competitor artapart.com as well as a host of other niche websites.

But even so, a free link in a niche I don't usually penetrate is worth checking out. I clicked on the add link, where I ran into a form that stopped just short of asking for my SSN and my banking information, with this privacy policy.



PRIVACY POLICY:
As member of this community we offer an in depth newsletter that contains all of the latest news, discussions, blogs and websites. We try to make the newsletter as valuable to you as possible by providing you with up to date information delivered on the schedule you specify.

Unlike many newsletters, we will never sell your e-mail address to mass-marketers. It will only be used for standard operations by our parent organization and to keep you up to date with this community.

Mandatory information on the form is:

* First Name
* Last Name
* Address1
Address2
* City
* State
* Country
* Email
* Password
Phone
Note : All fields marked * are required

And that "parent organization" would be? Well, take your pick:

Copyright©1998- 2008 Aajost Technologies, LLC
All rights reserved. ( 1 / 29 / 10117 )


Friends of the community:
ArtApart.com | E-Shirt.com | MomFacts.com | TSE | BikerFacts.com | FaithfulNet.com | SportsSanctuary.com | UnspoiledEarth.com | HoundForYou.com | MusicIsInstrumental.com

...and if you click on the ArtApart.com link, you will find THEM linked to DeeperLeft - so there is a broad effort to scam people across the political spectrum, and apparently sort them by family size, favorite sport, faith and eco-consciousness.

That has me even more concerned, given that they have several ways to gain your banking information - just sign up for any one of a number of "free" services. Remember, they only promised not to misuse your email address!

But Name, Address, City, State, Country, zip and email are all mandatory. Of that, all they have a legitimate need to know for their "newsletter community" is email.

Now, I wonder what mischief I could brew - and what money I might spin - with a reliable list of real names and SSNs attached to particular bloggers, and a regular feed from their sites? The least nefarious would be to map them by legislative districts and start feeding them stories.

And by the way, what are "standard operations by our parent organization?" The standard operations of, say, the Democratic Leadership Council, the Mafia and the IRS are all quite different - but I welcome attention from none of them.

NOTHING I was able to learn about Aajost Technologies, LLC gave me any reason to think that altruism was a significant part of their business plan. So what do they plan to do - besides sell t-shirts and try and get me to sell some t-shirts for them? Well, I dunno, but that goal alone would not require any such deviousness. I deal with three reputable t-shirt companies - cafepress.com, spreadshirt.com and zazzle.com (presented in alphabetical order) and none have tried anything like this on me before. Moreover, they each make a great deal of effort to stay above politics, as business entities.

So what does
Aajost want with my personal information? Data mining is a probable intent. And with enough data to mine, I could easily use it to dig up dirt on bloggers in key states, and I could go a long way toward identity theft. If they use one of my "free" services, I have their banking information and SSN. At that point, I can screw anyone up badly enough to take them out of play.

That is just one potential scenario, but it's surely a potentially lucrative one.

You can bet blogs will be major players in the coming elections - and even minor blogs might have a major say in certain hotly contested districts. I wonder what people might pay to have information of that sort?

Me, I'm an anti-authoritarian blogger and I may as well have TANSTAFFL tattooed on my butt. Nobody gives you nothin' for nothin', so I take the time to think what "free" implies to the person offering me the freebie.

All the free services - including Blogger - carry a price with them. In some cases it's a price worth paying, but in other cases... like this... you'd be better off paying real money, because any price would be cheaper than the potential downsides of being linked to people who may not have your best interests at heart.

ATTN: doj.info@state.or.us
ATTN: Nevada Atty General's office


Read more!

Friday, March 07, 2008

The Fix Is In - Or is it?

I don't know about you, but I've had a problem with this election for some time, and it's an issue that is not so much with the apparent campaigns and the apparent candidates, but rather a growing suspicion that neither you nor I will be permitted a choice, and that "they" don't much care if we figure it out or not. I feel as if this has become political theater and the masses are requred to attend - in mute affirmation of a decision already made quite outside of any apparent party affiliation.

When it seems more likely that less obvious affiliations - like the Council on Foreign Relations or Skull and Bones - count for as much or more as overt support within a political party earned by hard work and honest passion, I start to wonder.

And I have cause to wonder about all the remaining candidates, in that regard, save Paul, who's been left in as he will provide some appearance of democratic process on the Republican side.

Of course, I've long harbored a jaded view of the actuality of democratic process within the Republican camp - it is very much a top-down group. But now it appears that even being a member of the overt hierarchy, of being in a position of apparent influence and power within a state or national party organization might just be a fond illusion.

Former NM Gov. Dave Cargo seems to be finding out that not only has the rule book been put aside, that many younger members of the NM party are unaware that there are rules, that do apply to them and that violations of these "silly rules" are actual felonies that even WHITE people could go to jail for. My God, even White Republicans!

I'll let Brad of the Brad Blog catch you up on the latest Republican scandal. Suffice it to say that there isn't even any evidence to suggest that those involved - and it involves media, a Senate candidate and high party officials - seem to have any idea that there are ethical lapses here that are serious enough that one should at LEAST be aware of in the breach. But it seems that they really do not think there is anything wrong at all with packing a convention with paid shills in order to come out with the "right" candidates - instead of the candidate that would have been seated by actual grass-roots activists.

They don't see a problem with that; the only comment has been something to the effect that "it's not illegal," although the state AG appears to have a divergent opinion in that regard.

But even if it turns out that a state party can run it's operations any way it chooses and pick candidates any way it likes... well, ethics are not an abstract, feel-good guideline to how to be a nice person. Ethics are a guide to living in a crowd of other humans without causing them to decide that your skin would be of much greater utility as a tasteful handbag.

I don't much care if various republicans and democrats have made willing bargains with The Forces of Evil, thinking they don't really need a soul all that much, and they would have gone to hell anyhow for all that masturbation. Ethics is about consequences in the real, in the here and the now. Surprisingly enough, it doesn't matter all that much whether you think that by controlling law enforcement and the courts that you are immune.

All you do is diffuse the consequences so that they splash about onto everyone around you. And sooner or later, the very people being used to shield you from the consequences of your actions become the agents of consequence. Oh, and since they have been raised up by such ruthless examples, the fall will be harder than an honest acceptance of responsibility would have been. I, Claudius is instructive in this regard.

There is another aspect of human nature that is not well appreciated - at least in this context. Anyone who's had a young child underfoot knows it immediately, though. People, at root, do not like getting away with stuff they should not be able to get away with, much less being put in a position where they have to "look the other way" or even participate in things they know to be wrong just to stay within their peer group or keep their job.

At some point, a constant presumption upon the forgiving nature of others for your efforts "on their behalf" or "for the cause" will backfire, and it's one of those things where a sudden cascade effect may be expected. There are enough whistle blowers and leakers now that they have apperently started their own professional organization!

I was almost surprised that only 7 of 9 core activists left the party. But then, I suppose I shouldn't be; I've been asking myself for years a rhetorical question regarding all the arrant bullshit from the wingnut right - "how stupid do you have to be to believe this?"

I say that as someone who is neurologically biased toward conservatism and who is passionately in favor of a nice, stable, predictable status quo ante. I'm on the Autistic Spectrum, and I hate change.

But on the other hand, that means that just about every other reflexive conservative I've ever met, I LIKE rules. I EXPECT fair play. I assume the rules are there for a good reason unless there's some reason to think they aren't. Finding that only those who write the rules profit from their application - by others - caused me to return to first principles and start evolving my own.

I take a very dim view of folks who think rules are for the other guy and snicker at all the "suckers" who believe that "fairy tale" stuff. It is not without some personal satisfaction that I see the political structure of this nation collapsing around the ears of those who thought themselves entitled to rule us by virtue of their willingness to abandon all standards of decency and all obligations to their constituencies if it led to a moment's advantage or an extra nickel in their political war chest.

It's somewhat disturbing, though, to see what happens when candidates forget themselves - like McCain has done from time to time - and act as if they were the persons of integrity they once aspired to be. It's amusing to see how suddenly and how hard their chains are jerked, how quickly and publicly they are forced to correct the impression that they might just have backbones and thoughts that diverge from the party line. One could almost feel sorry... but...

Sir; once you are a "made man," you are a made man for life.

Those who think I'm only talking about Republicans would be sadly mistaken. Of course, one could observe that the current Democratic Party is more accurately the Clinton Wing of the Republican party. It's snarky on my part to observe that Ms. Clinton is by far the best NeoLiberal in the race.

But now that Murdoch's media start shoving Clinton down my throat when I'd expect lascivious reporting on every "Swift Boat" style attack, I find myself reluctant to accept someone the establishment media wants me to support.

Aside from the politics, aside from the greed, aside from the corruption, the war-mongering, the killing and the lies, all things that I despise as a matter of principle, the thing that really works my last nerve is the sheer arrogance displayed, the amazing contempt this sort of thing shows for the average American voter, and the more they get away with and the longer they get away with it, the more obvious it gets.

And I'm afraid it's a fine bi-partisan contempt in many ways. Everyone in Washington, on either side has more interests in common with each other than they have with the people that supposedly employ them.

I'm starting to feel that it's coming up to one of those moments in history where the great majority are pretty much willing to roll the dice.


Read more!

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Why I miss William F. Buckley

"This classic footage shows William F. Buckley & a young Noam Chomsky discussing the Viet Nam war. In only the way Buckley could, he threatens Chomsky by casually injecting, "Because, as you would, I'd smash you in the God-damned face." Don't you wish some of our current day leaders had as much chutzpah?"

read more | digg story

Frankly, yes - and as you will also note, the inherent self respect to actually allow Noam to make his point before (as I'm sure he did) shooting it as full of holes as he could manage. There's not a single talking head on the right now who has the stones to wait until they see the white of Noam's eyes. Since it cannot be that those of the intellectual rigor and high personal standards reflected by Buckley are no more, we must presume that for some reason that level of conservatism is thought to be too challenging, too intellectual for the godbothering 30 percenters.

Or it could also be that it's very difficult to imagine a conservative of such rigor putting up with the requirement to pander to the tender sensibilities and laughable delusions of both Cultural Conservatives and the Trickle-down theorists.


First - let me say that WFB often infuriated me with positions that I thought indefensible. And yet his arguments, in many cases, either caused me to grudgingly reconsider the absolute, reflexive moral superiority of my position - or if not that, to softly and silently pocket the rhetorical technique.

He described himself as a Libertarian Conservative, but I regret to say that in that regard, our views of what Libertarianism - and the related topic in both our minds of what politics informed by faith should look like - differ. Wildly.

Nonetheless, the thing I loved about WFB was that one could never dismiss his arguments out of hand. Nor could one seriously credit that he might be making his arguments for any reason other than passionate, personal conviction that he also held at ransom to reason and rationale.

Indeed, he reversed his opinions on many issues over the years, and he was never apologetic of having done so. One of the best things about this great man of the Right was that he was never afraid to be wrong - nor unwilling to amend the wrong, with passion equal to the trespass.

On the other hand, I doubt very much that popularity had anything whatsoever to do with the evolution of his principles.

Now, the only thing that could convince Limbaugh or O'Rielly to change their minds on a topic is the same thing that convinced them to first pick their topics - large sums of money. Ideally placed in an offshore bank.

I learned a great deal from WFB over the years. I learned how important rigor in argument is. I learned to respect fact more than assertion. And frankly, being on the side of his guests as often as not, I learned that while a great and intimidating facade is a valuable thing indeed, there has to be something behind the facade to turn posture into poise.

I loved the fact that he was as unapologetically upper-class northeastern white intellectual with the same "and you can choke on it" 'tude of any rapper from south-central LA.

The most important thing I learned from him was this; how a gentleman behaves when confronted with an idea they find distasteful. They argue, with the goal of ensuring that it's far more effective to get the person advocating a distasteful idea to fully explain it and demonstrate that it is, indeed, distasteful than to simply assert with a patrician snort that it's distasteful nature requires that it be dismissed unconsidered.

Oh, and of course one has to admire a man who was quite capable using words such as cretinous correctly in casual discourse. When a teacher referred to me once as "A little William F. Buckley," I took it as a profound complement. Nor would I consider being compared to him at all insulting today.


Read more!

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Bleeding Heart Libertarianism