Jesse Heinig's Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Jesse Heinig's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Sunday, November 20th, 2011 | | 9:30 pm |
Holy Constitutional writ.
I've seen discussion about the Tea Party protests and Occupy Wall Street protests that all lean on the same basic principle of Constitutionality -- often discussing infringement of various civil rights, typically from the original Bill of Rights. OWS protesters tend to point out that "free speech zones" are a violation of the first amendment protections of free speech and assembly, and that police use of pepper spray and batons on unarmed, unresisting protesters is a violation of fourth amendment protections of due process. Tea Partiers I'm less familiar with, but a lot of them seem focused on the fear that the government will take away their guns in violation of the second amendment's protection of militia formations. (I'll leave the validity of the arguments of either group out of the equation for now, as that is not the focus of this commentary.) What fascinates me is that both of these underscore a specific presupposition that enters the national dialogue at a very basic level: The notion that Constitutionality, or legitimacy implied by the "Founding Fathers" (which, depending upon the specifics of the discussion, might include only the architects of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or might extend an umbrella over all of the writers and activists involved in the separation of the United States from Great Britain). This is, itself, a form of flawed argument: Appeal to authority. Folks keep going back to this notion that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are unimpeachable authorities, and that anything that contravenes them (and, in common extensions, the "intent" of the Founders) is thus wrong. Now, the Constitution is a real marvel of a document, both in its attempt to create a system of government that rejected the old feudal model of Europe (notably by including the work of then-modern philosophers as well as inspiration from other local groups such as the Iroquois Nations) and in its ability to inspire a government in spite of its incredible vagueness in some of its provisions. This does not, however, mean that it is a supernatural document, nor that it should always be taken as a given that the Constitution is itself correct in all things. Indeed, the very notion of a Constitutional amendment presupposes that the Constitution may need modification from time to time. Thus, when people attempt to justify their positions by referencing "Constitutionality," they are falling into an old trap -- the use of a specific document, "holy writ" if you will, to justify a position, rather than relying on actual reasoning. Of course, the Constitution does determine legality in the U.S., but "legal" is not the same as "appropriate." (See the Jim Crow laws for an example of legal-but-inappropriate.) The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights also do enshrine very important principles of liberty and equality (well, with a few amendments along the way), but we must remember that these are documents almost 200 years old; they say almost nothing about many matters considered modern issues. The original Constitution doesn't talk at all about abortion, gay marriage, file sharing, entanglement of investment and savings financial institutions, or the internet. How could it? Many of these simply weren't issues when it was written. Legal interpretation has often had to rely on a "halo effect," the implication that the Constitution protects all rights and that simply because a right is not explicitly enumerated doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. This has an unfortunate side-effect, though, of blunting reasoned debate. When people talk about these modern issues, especially in the context of the Tea Party or the OWS protests, they often talk about the Constitutionality of things going on. Do gay people have a right to marry? Do individual business owners have a right to discriminate against specific ethnicities or religions? Over and over you'll hear sound bytes about a "Constitutionally-protected right" as if that completely resolves the matter. These protected rights get thrown about on both sides of the arguments -- on the one hand, the fourteenth amendment guarantees that all citizens of the U.S. shall have all the same rights; doesn't that protect gay people's right to marry the partner of their choice? The first amendment prohibits the government's interference in religion and vice versa; doesn't that mean that the government can't pass a law that prohibits religious people from discriminating against other people who are considered a violation of their religious standards? If you keep going back to the well of "This is Constitutional" or "This is what the Founding Fathers believed," you are going back to argument by authority. You're asserting that some final authority justifies a particular law or action, without actually examining the ramifications of that justification. We live in an era where information is available in greater detail and greater quantities than in any earlier period of humanity, in which we can and should apply critical examination to our policies and our politics. When you're talking about legal precedent, sure, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate tie-breaker about the law -- when it actually has something to say on the topic. Should gay people be allowed to marry? Constitutionally, isn't that a protected right? But the real question that should be asked is, why is that right protected? Why do we allow this or not allow it? What is the affect on our society? The answers to those questions are already in, as gay marriage is protected in other parts of the world outside the U.S. -- allowing gay people the right to marry their partners of choice improves their sense of participation in the civic process. They do not feel disenfranchised. They benefit from the rights and protections of such partnership, which encourages them to exercise and protect those rights for everyone. (If only married people get the benefit of not testifying against their spouses, for example, and you're not allowed to be married, what is your incentive to vote to protect that right?) And the kicker is, of course, that the effect on society is mostly negligible. Some gay people get married. They weed the lawn, wash the car, send the kids to school. Life goes on. The world doesn't end. By this standard, it doesn't matter that the Constitution doesn't talk directly about gay marriage. (It really has very little to say about marriage at all.) By adopting the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as the signature documents of our society, what we're stating is that we have a commitment to a particular way of life -- the so-called American Way that Superman used to champion -- that these documents attempt to support and uphold. To really promote that way of life, we must examine them critically and understand what those documents are trying to do, and how that influences our modern way of living. We need to understand that these are documents trying to codify a system of equal justice, protected rights and liberties, and necessary government for the establishment and protection of a civil society. Similarly, some folks like to talk about the writings of Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin and use the documents or letters of these Founders to justify various positions. (Pithy quotes are a common favorite.) The reality is, though, that these were just men -- in fact, a subset of people; privileged, land-owning, mostly slave-holding, educated white men. Why should their opinions and their writings necessarily be considered the ultimate authority on politics and law? This is not to say that they are without merit -- these men did attempt to enshrine the ideas of equal treatment and justice. They just weren't perfect, nor should they be considered wholly error-free and without flaw. Thus, it is incumbent upon us -- people living in the here and now, grappling with the issues of the modern world -- to exercise judgment and rational analysis to inform ourselves and our society about the reasons why we uphold certain social standards and laws. Simply saying "The Constitution says so" or "Ben Franklin had a pithy quote about security and freedom" doesn't cut it. What do we want from our society? Why? How do we get it? To arrive at justice and liberty, we must analyze the reasons behind our laws, the way we implement them, and the values that we claim to uphold. "The Founding Fathers said . . . " just doesn't cut it any more. It's been over two centuries. As children of the modern age, we must look to modern ideas for our solutions. | | Monday, September 19th, 2011 | | 1:06 am |
The Big Damn Firefly Post.
Spoilers ahoy! I've spent the last year slowly chewing my way through Firefly and, finally, Serenity, so that I can be familiar with the property. Certainly it has a cachet with a particular viewership, who constitute a rabid fanbase. I've written a little bit about the show on Facebook while digging through it; now here's my full summary. ( Read more... ) | | Saturday, September 17th, 2011 | | 11:21 am |
Moving on.
Just a few days ago I had to cut someone out of my life. I don't have a lot of experience with this and the whole process has left me profoundly shaken and questioning what I could have done differently. What else can you do when you fall for someone who has no feelings for you, and it hurts so much that the only thing you can think to do is find a way out before it destroys you? Unfortunately, this has cast a pall on an otherwise exceptionally satisfying life. I still have a phenomenal job -- I get to work on Star Trek every day and I'm paid well to do so. My contributions are appreciated and people like my work. I have the chance to learn new things -- whether it's advancing my training in martial arts, or the dance classes that I've recently been taking. I get to live in a city with gorgeous weather all the time and travel around to go on hikes and visit charming or wondrous sites. I made the switch to being a vegetarian a while ago, which has helped me to appreciate being kind to animals even more. I'm in good shape for someone my age, thanks to a regular and constant exercise regimen (as well as the aforementioned diet). I finally found my self-confidence, and now I'm fearless. So now I must move on, and learn to be content with being alone. (If I were a good Buddhist, this would be simple, but alas, I am not.) It's a shame, too, as I don't give out a piece of my heart lightly, or often. I just hope that all of the hurting ends. | | Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 | | 7:24 pm |
One Year!
A little over a year ago, I landed my current job with Cryptic Studios. The year since then has been quite a whirlwind. The job itself is phenomenal. I work with highly intelligent people and I have the opportunity to work with Star Trek, a property that's been part of my life since watching reruns of the original series with my father when I was very young. My contributions are respected by the team and my skills are noted. Having a job gave me the means to chart my own course again. I now have a nice apartment in a pleasant town. San Jose has been excellent; the weather is phenomenal. I can afford to study kung fu again, and to take dance lessons, and to find other avenues to pursue interesting experiences with my time. I'm hoping to travel to Europe soon, now that I can afford such expenses. This has also given me a great deal of peace of mind and security. I have finally learned to have confidence in myself. This is a lesson that has been a long time in coming. The only blemish on an otherwise amazing life is the lack of anyone special with whom I can share it. But, that alone cannot stop me from getting out and experiencing wonderful things. What a difference a year makes. What will happen in the next year? | | Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011 | | 10:41 am |
A Small Tribute
My friends may be aware that I have recently lost my spark of creativity and have thus found myself unable to write for several months. Yet I cannot simply let the birthday of H. P. Lovecraft pass by unremarked (August 20!). Thus, I called upon my training from the "Isaac Asimov writing plan," which I pursued for a while some years back -- in the footsteps of that master of science fiction, I made sure to write something every day, no matter the condition, just to make sure that I could write under any circumstances. Thus, to celebrate the birthday of H. P. Lovecraft, I present a short story that I wrote in the style of Lovecraft or Clark Ashton Smith. I wrote this all in one draft late at night, so forgive me if it is somewhat uneven; and I made certain to engage in some rather overwrought prose. Enjoy! ( "The Minds of Mortals" ) | | Sunday, August 14th, 2011 | | 11:32 pm |
What would you do . . .
What would you do if you knew that you would never, in your life, discover a true love, companion, or soul-mate? How would you change your goals and your expectations? Would you be able to live with this? | | Monday, July 11th, 2011 | | 6:21 pm |
| | Sunday, June 19th, 2011 | | 7:05 pm |
| | 12:26 pm |
Father's Day Doggerel
To all the dads Good and bad Happy and sad Skinny and fat It's time to reflect And pay some respect For the work you have done For your daughter or son. When you held 'em Or fed 'em Or taught 'em Or lead 'em Sometimes it was tough But you pushed through the bother For the person you loved Who called only you "father." | | Sunday, June 12th, 2011 | | 11:57 pm |
Just One Weekend
Let's see . . . Saturday morning: Shaolin kung fu, including some review and some monkey-style grappling and ground fighting. Saturday afternoon: Visit by the parents, some catching up, and a nice casual dinner; plus they gave me a rice cooker that they don't use. Saturday evening: Buzz on up to the Sonoma area in the north bay, hang out with some friends and play a little Vampire, then spend the night there. Sunday morning: Enjoy the drive back down from Sonoma in the lovely summer weather. Sunday afternoon: Stop for a quick lunch, then stuck in traffic. Blast! Finally made it to Pacifica to rendezvous with the D&D pals for a game. Sunday evening: Back home and into the workout routine, with even more ab work, plus another set of endurance reps after the cardio to really add some burn. Now for a relaxing cup of cranberry juice and an hour or so of peace before bed. Not too shabby for one weekend. | | Thursday, June 2nd, 2011 | | 1:13 am |
| | 12:29 am |
Vampire: The Passion
Many years ago I worked for a little outfit called White Wolf, where we made some games. If you're reading this LJ entry, you may have heard of them. Anyway, fast forward to 2011, when there are a couple different versions of this game called Vampire. The latest iteration of the original is on its way -- Vampire: The Masquerade 20th Anniversary Edition, and if you haven't ordered a copy yet, you should -- and the successor, Vampire: The Requiem, is also kicking around with a big following. I've done a little writing for Vampire from time to time. I had a slight hand in shaping the revised iteration of the Tremere clan, and I had the opportunity to tweak some blood magic and some live-action rules and some Kindred of the East. Occasionally, though, I just get this weird notion to tear it all down and give the world my own take on a little bit of Gothic-punk personal horror. ( Read more... ) | | Monday, January 17th, 2011 | | 4:06 am |
Media Matters.
Now that I've been gainfully employed for a few months I've finally had an opportunity to catch up on a lot of media that I've missed over the last few years.
Alpha Protocol: Espionage CRPG from Obsidian. Worked my way through this game and I'm going through a second run. I like it quite a bit. Dialog system is tense. Controls are a little twitchy (obviously designed for console and tough to adapt to PC). It's a smart game with some really challenging gameplay (occasionally frustrating). I enjoy that it accommodates different playstyles (playing as a stealth operative, a gadgeteer, or a tactical assault guy are all valid, as are social approaches of all kinds).
James Bond: Over the winter break I finally saw Goldeneye, Goldfinger, and Dr. No. Curious to see the development of the spy genre and Bond in particular. Enjoyed the spycraft in Dr. No. Goldeneye was really cool in wondering about Bond's relevance after the Cold War. I'm inclined to agree with the assessment that Bond is the myth of English power, the fall-back of the privileged upper-crust white man who can go anywhere, kill anyone, have any woman, and show the unflagging power of the British Empire, just on the heels of that Empire's fall -- that is, a fantasy of when Brits "ruled the world." I wonder if we'll get a media equivalent for the declining United States as a world power? Firefly: Partway through the series. Don't really like the characters. Pretty "meh" about it. I'll finish it, I suppose, so that I can just nod and smile thinly when my friends go all ooh-ahh about it at game conventions. Doesn't turn my crank. Would likely rather play Starship Valkyrie (a pseudo- Star Trek/Starship Troopers/BSG game) than Firefly as a LARP. Dead Space: Action/horror space game. Kinda fun, but very difficult. Disorienting sometimes. Like the novel use of microgravity environments. Dislike the "run around like a chicken and try not to die because you can't affect the game" bits. Boneshaker: Steampunk novel by Cherie Priest. Award-winner set in an alternative Seattle with airships and zombies. Nice setting, some heavy-handedness in the way the plot unfolds. Using an earthquake to keep one of the main characters from turning back on his quest for identity and closure over his missing father is unnecessary; if the character's motivations are strong, they will drive him forward in spite of the dangers. Feels right now like it's more of a setting that happens to have a story dropped into it, than a story that happens to showcase a setting. Eastwood: Finally saw High Plains Drifter over the break. Interesting that it's not the only movie where Eastwood hints that his character is an avenging spirit -- really sets a style for the supernatural western (and a clear influence for the Deadlands RPG). Godfather: Saw Godfather II over the break as well (thanks Ashley!). Interesting follow-up. Like the way that the movie parallels the Cuban revolution with the events in the family. Interesting to see the protagonist(?) unraveling and becoming paranoid as time goes on, and of course the full-circle beginnings of it all, plus the reminder that all of this has roots in vengeance that goes in an endless violent cycle. Have heard that there's a special cut that puts all of the movies and their scenes into one chronological sequence. Probably less interesting to watch that way, but worth watching just for the analytical interest. Looking forward to seeing that last movie next time I have a chance to visit L.A. and have Ashley dust off her collection, even though I've heard that Godfather III is by far the weakest of the lot. Really, it's kind of absurd how much relevant movie I've failed to consume in the past, considering my work as a creative designer and author. Better late than never . . . Current Mood: whimsical | | Friday, December 17th, 2010 | | 6:07 pm |
| | Thursday, December 16th, 2010 | | 12:40 am |
Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader (movie version).
These days I wind up seeing more movies than I used to, simply because I have free evenings and not a lot of local associates and fellow ne'er-do-wells. I would imagine this is kinda why James Steele saw so many movies. This time out, I saw "The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader," which you already know if you read the title of this post. This film was thoroughly, relentlessly "meh," which is a pretty stern condemnation of the studio's treatment of the source material. It's pretty clear that the mommy-daddy fighting between Disney and Walden, and the subsequent budget reduction, really cut into the movie's production values. Not only that, but the writers decided that it would be too hard to showcase the story in the order shown in the book, so they make up a McGuffin (the seven swords of the seven Telmarine lords) and change the progression of events in the book. Guys . . . if you're getting paid megabucks to write screenplays for Hollywood, perhaps you should accept that your job may be challenging and occasionally difficult and actually put in the time to make the story work cinematically instead of copping out with "It's too hard to do what we want when we follow the book, so let's just screw around with it." Along the way, the screenwriters managed to miss the whole point of the book. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader begins as a journey to discover the lost Telmarine lords, then turns into a journey to defeat darkness (in the movie, green mist) and, for at least one character (Reepicheep), an attempt to reach Aslan's Country (heaven, if you follow the theological interpretation of the series). This means that the voyage of the Dawn Treader begins as a mundane journey but turns into a spiritual quest and therefore showcases the old saw that "it's about the journey, not the destination." The screenwriters apparently decided to toss this out the window and instead make the journey a pursuit of seven magical swords that, laid on Aslan's stone table (which has somehow wound up in the Uttermost East), will break the spell of an evil green mist that is stealing people away. The young principal actors do a good job -- credit to them. They probably read the book and then read the screenplay and then dutifully soldiered on as best they could. Other websites have hacked apart how the movie differed from the book, but my major complaint is not that it cut scenes or made up characters or removed characters, but it changed the focus of the book from spiritual allegory to an adventure film. This is starkly underscored by Eustace's dragon transformation. Eustace is arguably the most important character in the book, as he is the one who undergoes the most character development. He goes from a thoroughly rotten and priggish brat (which, not surprisingly, coincides in Lewis' work with being analytical and logic-driven) to a sympathetic character because he grows due to suffering the consequences of bad choices. In Lewis' work, of course, Aslan has to turn Eustace back from a dragon into a boy by digging into the dragon-scales and tearing them away -- Lewis' way of saying that you can't get rid of bad habits (like rational thinking) on your own, you have to let God get his claws into you and really change you to the core in painful ways. There's a dream-scene in the novel in which Eustace has a dialog with Aslan to try to understand how his superficial changes will not be enough to turn him back, but this is completely removed in the movie in exchange for turning Eustace the Dragon into an action hero. Thus, Eustace's character development is never really explored; he just gets turned into a dragon, heroes around a bunch, then POOF he's a boy again and now he's not bratty. Similarly, the golden bracelet that transforms him and pains him (the "first step" into his bad choices, the one that leaves a scar) is visible but it's never really addressed other than to have Lucy just toss it aside. BLEAH! On the up side, it should be intriguing to see Will Poulter in the next film, as he does a good turn of Bratty Eustace and does not have enough time later as Repentant Eustace. (Again, likely because he spends too much time as Dragon Eustace.) Normally I wouldn't harp on special effects over story, but it's also pretty clear that the effects budget was all blown on the sea serpent end-story confrontation that does twenty minutes of video game boss fight. Overall, unimpressive. That's a real shame, too, because Dawn Treader is consistently one of the most popular books in the series, and its episodic adventure-turned-spiritual-journey could've been an interesting film. Sadly, the filmmakers . . . got lazy. Next up will be The Silver Chair, where we get more Eustace Clarence Scrubb, Jill Pole, and (here's hoping he's not a CGI insert) Puddleglum the Marsh-Wiggle. With any luck the returns and reviews on Dawn Treader will convince the studio not to mess too much with the search for Prince Rilian and instead to get back to just telling the damn story (a cautionary tale about what happens when you forget to say your prayers every night before bed; but since Lewis is so relentlessly Christian allegorical that he apparently missed that when Aslan tells Lucy and Edmund that they are "too old" for Narnia and must know him by another name in our world, he is essentially comparing Christianity to a grown-up version of childrens' make-believe). Current Mood: bemused | | Saturday, November 27th, 2010 | | 2:57 am |
Deconstructing Niall Ferguson
So tonight I had the dubious joy of plowing through a substantial chunk of Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money, ostensibly a historiography of the rise of finance. Ferguson (who is known in some circles as a "counterfactual" historian) also makes the grandiose claim that he believes that all history is irrevocably tied to finance and that finance drives all wars and all social events. I think that pegging complex systems on any one simple cause is a load of horse puckey, but that should not be surprising, as I wound up taking issue with a lot of Ferguson's self-aggrandizing posturing in his love letter to the Chicago school of economics. Then again, a lot of economic modeling is kind of the history of trying to use a single input or equation to explain the complexities of market distribution, so this is probably just a habit of economists. ( Read more... ) | | Saturday, November 6th, 2010 | | 5:57 pm |
The Market of Sociopathy.
Recently, a friend's Facebook entry became a weird sort of ideological battleground with Tea Partiers, would-be revolutionaries, and conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodwork. It's a shame that politics and economics are so heavily intertwined, because it means that you can't discuss one without discussing the other, but that's only natural since as I've opined before, "Economics of the process of determining the distribution method of scarce resources. Politics is the process of deciding who makes those decisions." tl;dr below! ( tl;dr ) Current Mood: compassionate | | Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 | | 4:11 pm |
We are living beyond our means.
At the end of World War II (where all modern U.S. history eventually winds up), the U.S. was left as the foremost manufacturing power in the industrial world. Europe was basically a heap of rubble. Japan had just been nuked, twice. China, India, the many and varied African nations -- they lacked the industrial infrastructure and education to compete in any broad way with the U.S. on the global economic market. So we rebuilt the world. This ushered in decades of prosperity. With the Great Depression a memory, the GI Bill serving up homes and college degrees for returning veterans, and countries all across Europe in need of U.S. goods and trading in U.S. dollars, the economy surged forward. People started to live by the dream of the culture -- every family, a home of its own. (In many cultures, you live in the traditional family house, staying with your parents, and pass it on to your children.) The national highway infrastructure turned the country into the paradise for the automobile, and people raced to snap those up. Leisure spending crept up as people demanded televisions, movies, vacations. Bolstered by its manufacturing base, its universities, its huge population base and its then-stable currency, the U.S. was able to live beyond the dreams of most other nations. With years of work Europe would rebuild its infrastructure and eventually forge a stronger E.U. Later, brush wars to "contain Communism" would suck up the U.S.'s resources and youth, and eventually collapse the Soviet Union under the weight of military spending. Life was good. This pace of rapid industrialization led inevitably to new technologies. The constant drive to make better, faster, shinier gewgaws and consumer goods -- and to race to the moon, to build a better bomb, and to crack the secrets of surveillance and codes -- gave us nuclear power, computers, genetics, plastics, and a host of other toys. It also gave us the internet, which is how this screed makes its way into the wild. That's the key: The internet sends knowledge out into the wild. When you want to build infrastructure, you need a location, you need labor, you need materials, and you need knowledge. Before, you had to build in places where you could have labor and knowledge. You built a steel plant in the U.S. because you had a workforce that could handle the technology to construct the damn thing and a base of ready labor in the people that lived in the large communities of the U.S. If you wanted to make a nuclear reactor, you had to do it in a seriously developed nation; nobody else had the materials (refined uranium), the knowledge (how to make a controlled fission reaction without blowing yourself up), the labor (educated nuclear scientists). All they had was location. With the internet, with knowledge in the wild, you suddenly have labor and knowledge anywhere you want it. The same is true to some degree thanks to the fax machine, satellite communications, the telephone; ubiquitous communication makes ubiquitous information. Your location can be any place on the planet where you can plop down your parts, and you can get materials anywhere by plane, by ship, by helicopter, hell, even by camel. You don't have to build your factory near a university, or even in a developed nation; you can plop it down in the middle of a desert somewhere (the low humidity means less rust!) or perhaps at the base of a mountain range in some hinterland. Impoverished people will come to you, looking for work. And the spread of information means you can find educated people anywhere. Someone made it out of that ghetto in Calcutta, in Kowloon, in Addis Ababa, and got a degree. You can hire him or her. Suddenly the U.S. doesn't have anything with which to compete. And the U.S. has a lot of laws. A lot of laws. That's why we have 40-hour work weeks and (sometimes) medical benefits and vacation days and worker protections and why we don't have sweatshops (that people know about) or unsafe factories (when we can catch them) or child labor. We outsource that crap to other countries. So what's happening? Globalization is happening. The standard of living in the U.S. is declining because standards of living elsewhere are rising. In China, the median income is surging. Thousands -- maybe millions -- of people who were below the world poverty line are suddenly becoming "middle class." India has actually become enough of an industrial powerhouse to have its own entertainment sector, and we got Bollywood. (Grant Collier, of Infinity Ward, once jokingly said that the U.S. would always be a world leader because of our culture -- "Where will people go for movies or videogames? Bollywood?" he laughed. And today we have Slumdog Millionaire winning awards.) Now you might here some folks tell you that the obvious answer is that we have to get competitive by removing those laws. I mean, you can have child labor and sweatshops and unsafe factories in India or Pakistan or Yemen. That's how you get your really cheap T-shirts. Make them in huge quantities in places where you don't have to pay anything, really, and ship 'em over. But that . . . that is a race to the bottom. It's saying that we shouldn't protect anyone, anywhere from exploitation, because someone, somewhere is going to be, well, evil. The alternative is to try to push for other countries to raise their standards. We may have to wait 'til there's a huge garment fire in China before their sweatshops get more safety. Maybe India will need an entire generation of underprivileged children to sweep into the polls and enact child labor laws. But the U.S. should have been parlaying its influence to make these things happen. It's good for them -- it protects people from exploitation and abuse. It's good for us -- it means that we stay relatively competitive on the world market. Sadly, the U.S. has squandered its influence. That influence was wasted on generation after generation of brush wars, and McMansions bought with refinanced housing debt, and huge cars with terrible mileage financed by killing research budgets into alternative energy, and pissing away international goodwill and personal savings rates. Now the U.S. isn't in much of a position to do any leading, seeing how China holds the purse strings. So it's time for the inevitable adjustment. A lot of people in the rest of the world are getting their shot at consuming some of the resources that the U.S. has been hogging for half a century. If we're graceful, if we are careful, if we mind our money and act responsibly, then we may be able to slide down into an adjustment. Real buying power of U.S. wages has declined steadily in the last decade, maybe more; people have been using their debt, mostly from refinanced homes on exotic CDOs, to keep up their lifestyles. We've lived high on the hog for so long that we think it's a right, not a privilege or a luxury. And we will scream, and yell, and wave guns and threaten anyone who dares to suggest otherwise -- just look at the Tea Party. So much for graceful, careful, thrifty, and responsible. The alternative isn't pretty. As the U.S. needs to find ways to finance its national debt, that means austerity measures. But nobody wants to pay more taxes. Who cares that it's your civic duty, right? You got yours, and fuck everyone else. Instead you wind up with rioting like in Greece. You wind up with increasingly bitter people looking for alternatives and places to put blame -- like blaming Mexicans for "taking all the jobs." (Immigrant labor disproportionately impacts high school drop-outs, which should tell you something about who's complaining.) Like blaming the gays for "bringing the wrath of God down on America." (Gay couples tend to be affluent and childless, so they actually spend more; they also don't have marriage benefits, so they pay more in taxes. Both of these actually help the economy.) Like turning to religion to answer your questions instead of reason. Like using fear to motivate people, instead of diplomacy. England went from an empire to a stately nation with a series of bangs abroad, as it lost its colonies and eventually lost all its money in the bitter war at the very beginning of this posting. The U.S. doesn't have that option. If there's going to be unrest and displacement and violence, it's going to be at home. And if you don't go out with a whimper, the alternative is a bang. | | Friday, July 2nd, 2010 | | 5:11 pm |
Time for Michael Steele to bow out gracefully.
I believe that RNC chairman Michael Steele should step down -- but probably not for the reasons that you think. Between the misuse of funds and the offbase commentary, and now with the most recent claims that the fighting in Afghanistan is "Obama's war" (here's a hint: the U.S. became involved in Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up opposition to the Soviets, and later we started Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001, so calling this "Obama's war" is wildly inaccurate), Michael Steele has shown that he's not providing useful guidance and he seems focused more on talking-head sound bytes than upon actual, useful dialog or policy. It's like he's cribbing from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity in his attempts to inflame listeners by using charged statements regardless of their accuracy or relevance. Now a cynical liberal might say "Great, keep him there, he can keep talking trash and causing problems for the Republicans." And to a large extent I feel that problems in the Republican party are self-generated, between their attempts to appease social conservatives who want to force their religious beliefs on other people and the party's drive to inculcate fiscally uh . . . well, Tea Partiers, who naturally would be aghast if they actually understood the level of war spending and corporate bailout spending that the Republicans have backed. The problem is that Steele has become nothing more than a talking-point punching bag. If we want substantive movement on issues in this country, we have to discuss real issues. We have to discuss them in a meaningful way and dissect them for causes, then join together looking for solutions. You'll never get everyone to agree on those solutions but you need some kind of progress if you want to make changes. With Steele spouting pure rhetoric, he's not contributing to any sort of meaningful dialog. As John Stewart said on the Daily Show, he's a "partisan . . . hack." I WANT the RNC to have a tough-as-nails chairman who spits constructive policy and has a staunch opinion on how to approach this country's structural problems, and who is able to articulate step-by-step how those solutions will work, with research and evidence from experts and history. I WANT the DNC and the other minor parties to have to rise to the occasion and provide the same level of dialog. Instead we have these effing screaming contests of people pointing fingers and running absolutely terrified of anything that would approach a real structural change because undereducated voters are scared of it and will vote them out of office. I mean, seriously, "Keep the government out of my Medicare?" That's a total failure to understand what the hell is going on -- and that ignorance is blocking any real attempt at progress, as people dig in like mules and resist policy changes on the strength of misunderstanding and fear. And if we can't get past fear, then what's the point of being able to think? Did you know: * Immigrant labor actually improves the economy slightly (it's about 1%) by driving down prices and making basic amenities more affordable? The people who take the biggest hit from competing with immigrants are generally high school dropouts. (Source: Atlantic Monthly) * The recently-passed half-hearted health care reform bill is expected to lower the amount of money that the federal government spends on healthcare, not to raise it? (Source: Congressional Budget Office) * Comparing veterans under age 65 in 2009 to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, *five times* as many veterans died from lack of health care as did those who died in the Middle East? * In spite of the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down Texas' anti-sodomy laws, both the Montana and Texas Republican party platforms include the goal of criminalizing homosexuality? * Drilling a relief well for the Gulf oil disaster at the depth and technological challenges present is about a two-to-three month operation, so there's no way for that project to move faster? (Source: My uncle Dave, who worked for Exxon as a ship's chief engineer up until his retirement) | | Sunday, June 6th, 2010 | | 4:46 pm |
[Camstuff] Character ties, redux.
With my prior character denied at Top, I'm building an alternative to play for six months. If you're interested in a connection with a curmudgeonly sort who doesn't answer phone calls and curses at people in Polish, drop me a line. |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=88.8){kind=small}
trekhead's journal