dead culture

Borders announced it will install wide-screen televisions on the walls of its bookstores.

Maybe I'm confused, but isn't Borders a bookstore? What do TVs have to do with reading?

comments on commentary

"Pelosi's talk of a "green" U.S. Capitol is especially phony when she refuses to allow the House of Representatives to vote on proposals to increase fuel-economy standards for vehicles. Higher mpg standards -- the average fuel economy of new cars, trucks and SUVs has not risen since 1988 -- are a million times more important to preventing artificial global warming than symbolic actions such as those being taken at the Capitol. Stricter mileage rules would not only reduce U.S. payments to Persian Gulf dictatorships but also make a significant dent in greenhouse gases because greenhouse emissions are proportional to fossil fuel burned. Yet while Pelosi announces lofty promises about a renewable Capitol, she won't schedule a vote on the strict new mileage standards backed by figures as diverse as President Bush and Barack Obama."

I'm quite convinced that the supposed Green movement has been throughly hijacked by some other agenda at this point. I don't see how the 'carbon offset' program is worth anything at all for environmental purposes, as it does nothing to actually reduce pollution and its supposed global warming effects. Nor does it do anything to increase energy independence and with this being the primary front made by 'greens' in this country, it leaves open isolationist thinking that we should be drilling for our own oil and screw the rest of the world. I'm not sure that drilling for our own resources is required, though it surely doesn't hurt as much as these greens claim it does. But without some reasonable measures to actually reduce energy dependence on other countries (ethanol won't cut it, it takes too much energy to produce at this point), these pointless debates will continue and Congress will continue to be ineffective and worthless.

As I understand the Constitution, it is the Congress that is to be the source of both tentative natures, to restrain the whims of the populace (and the executive), and also to be the foundation of change for innovative solutions to the problems of the public. Right now it appears to be trying, and failing, to restrain the whims of the executive and ignoring completely the whims and needs of the populace. Politics may be a dirty business, but it is supposed to achieve results. Results like these belong on the unemployment ranks.

Further comments on the environmental hypocrites:
As regards Gore's wasteful home energy utility bill.
"Members of Gore's species require high power levels to maintain human form." -- classic. Goes back to the Simpson's episode with Kang and Kodos taking over for Dole and Clinton...
"The former vice president is doing everything he personally can to cause global warming, so he can claim is predictions came true." --This is a personal favorite, as it correlates with my idea that fatalist people do what they can to create their own fate.
"We stand by our allegation that he is a sinister kingpin of international rare-bird smuggling." -- I don't think anyone would think of Al Gore as a kingpin of anything other than nonsense. But since the Norwegians apparently mistook his fraudulent claims as scientific advice that advanced the human species in a necessary and cooperative manner, he must have something that he can hold over them.

upset city

While it is pleasant in Ohio country to hail from Illinois right now (that would be the 2nd college football game I actually watched this year, 3rd total for football), I'm more amused by USC's heralded basketball team, or at least heralded freshman, losing to Mercer (@ home even). If anyone can tell me where Mercer is located without googling it or having attended it, I'll be impressed. At least most people in Ohio could identify Illinois as a state somewhere nearby and know Chicago as the capital (yes I know it isn't). Basketball this sort of thing happens more often, but it's still hilarious when it does. Obviously it does happen more often, as Kentucky lost at home too earlier in the week to another tiny school (Gardner-Webb).

oil money

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/08/brazil.oil.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Two things popped out of interest in this one. One, why are other countries continuing to pursue oil reserves and development when the country most dependent on oil is not, even off its coast where a country several thousand miles away is drilling. Very strange energy policy on our part. And two was the 2nd to last paragraph. It's a gem.

"If the best-case scenario happens, this discovery would make Petrobras' reserves overcome those of Shell and Chevron and put Petrobras behind only Exxon and British Petroleum,"

Notice how the company is described. Look again. Yes, there's no mention of country. Sure BP has British in there but 1) Britain is an island, not a country and 2) BP is everywhere. Multi-national corporations are entities in and of themselves. Especially energy companies. The idea that each company has reserves rather than countries possessing oil reserves in the ground or sea around their territory is apparently not a conscious development for our leaders or even media.
Elsewhere in the story the oil reserves were to be auctioned off in parcels for development and continued exploration. This was the only mention of the government's involvement. Government ownership of land is really the only way the government itself profits from the energy markets without internal taxation on the oil and gasoline itself. They can't very well tax what they send overseas. That money goes to the corporation. Which technically is taxed, but in reality, not so much. Some money is gathered by the government but the money is recouped by raising prices on consumers. So I guess the government gets its money but we get screwed. Good idea there.

argh

I had another odd thought where the Colbert train was derailed. Supposedly some of Obama's supporters came out against this 'farce'. On the theory that they draw support from the same audience (mostly people who know what facebook/myspace is because they're of the age bracket that popularized them). Here's the problem right now with that theory. Nobody has been able to show that twenty-somethings vote in large proportions. Something strange like the Colbert candidacy is needed to energize their attention towards politics enough to act and carry out a vote. So I'm not hopeful that any candidate who is relying on the broadest support base of twenty-somethings is a viable candidate nationally.

Next thought which occurred to me is that if this was such a farce, and something that was unnecessarily silly during what should be (and I agree here, it should be) a relatively serious issue, it occurs to me to ask what's so screwed up about the current system that people were at all interested in this. In fact, it looks to me like the farce is the popularity/beauty contests that candidates go through to become elected. Very little of their own opinions and thoughts are shown on any issue. Questions are rarely insightful and meaningful, answers are even less so. Rote prattling on about how bad America has it or how great America would be if only they elect 'me' does not impress me. Debates used to be meaningful forums where ideas were dissected for the impressment of the audience of a particular forum and the subsequent involvement (and perhaps manipulation) of public sentiment. Now they become free mudslinging events where the slightest misstep of any real idea emerging is treated as a cause for assault.

The main reason Hillary deserved to be berated after her response the other night for example wasn't that she is right or wrong on that issue (I think she's wrong, but I'm like everyone else, not quite sure what she really thinks of it). It's that she waffled on it within seconds. She didn't seem to have any idea what she wanted to do with it, and it's an issue that didn't just appear out of thin air. It's been around for the past several years, where she was supposedly in Congress to deal with it at the federal level. At the very least however, the fact that something emerged which appeared to be a real answer should have been sufficient. Instead she caved to what she thought (or rather what she knows) public sentiment is rather than understanding what might be in the public's best interest (which is probably not quite the way they're doing it in NY). I'm not quite certain she knows much about that public beyond which event she is speaking at on a given day and which organization she has to pander to that moment. But then that was a formula for successful election before. I don't consider Bill Jeff a poor presidential period on the basis of the various 'scandals'. I'm still miffed about his foreign policy track record and lack of integrated trade and labour policies. I would think a Rhodes scholar would understand more than just how to run a balanced budget and claim success for it (and the stock bubble). There were some flashes of ideas that might have been more useful socially, such as a series of debates on the topic of race and racial disharmony. But that's not enough for me to feel any better about the future under his wife's reign instead.

In any case, I suppose we're not electing any comedians anytime soon. Which probably means that the whole farcical scene will play on rather than anyone getting up to shout out that the emperor has no clothes. It almost feels like we should just clad a young lady in pure samite and have her lob a scimitar at random and whoever catches it would be king rather than a mandate from the masses.

top topics

CNN poll listed the top topics of 'interest' in the 08 election cycle.

1) Economy. I'm not sure what this means. Most people have no idea what the economy does or how it works, other than that they either have or do not have a job that they like and provides for their lifestyle. There are however several major economic issues that must be either resolved or at least addressed by major candidates. Right now none of the major candidates is proposing any solutions to social security (that have chance of passage, privatization didn't make it with a Republican Congress and President, which doesn't bode well, Dems have no workable solution right now). None of them are offering solutions to the AMT or the tax structure in general. Nobody is discussing the problems of economic instability, such as job transitions, temporary employment, or our massive foreign debt. Outside of the illegal immigrant question, nobody is discussing productivity and strengthening the American labour force. So nobody is talking about the economy basically.

2) Iraq. I guess I can see how this is a major issue, but if people think it's bound and determined to change quickly based on who gets elected they're in for a rude shock.

3) Health care. Again. Nobody seems to be able to address actual problems other than to say more Americans need it. The root issues involve reform over how health care is purchased in this country. Candidates seem to be at least aware of this issue and have a variety of 'plans'. I remain skeptical that any will pass and highly skeptical of any plan that doesn't involve free market solutions with perhaps some tighter regulation or oversight over how insurance companies operate. But that regulation could be done with tougher state laws and a few simple federal laws allowing things like interstate insurance. The idea that we need a socialized health care plan with state funding is ridiculous. HMOs are bad enough.

4) Terrorism. Unless I missed something, outside of Paul and maybe Obama nobody is talking at all about the roots of this problem. Maybe some people are afraid but I stopped paying attention once the Patriot Act passed. I know this anti-terrorist stance is little more than the anti-drug war with a different title and new ways to harass our citizens. Rather than a genuine attempt to reduce and possibly eliminate terrorist threats.

5) Iran. I guess Iran is the second biggest foreign problem after Iraq that we have. I'm not quite sure what we should be doing here because our military capacity to deal with Iran is fairly limited without international support. Which we don't have. And our diplomatic capacity is likewise limited without support. Which we don't have. Maybe they want to talk to us, but I doubt it. We certainly don't want to talk to them it seems.

6) Gas prices. Mostly these are annoying. What people should be worried about is long-term energy policy. Which we don't have. Either we should be trying to find our own energy to reduce the price or we should be trying to get off of gasoline and oil in the relatively near future.

7) Poverty. This is really the economic issue. How do we create opportunity and jobs that provide more opportunity? That really asks how do we provide growth in our economy. It does not ask, how do we take care of poor people. We know and accept this to be a problem that our society shoulders through its charitable nature and public funding. The long term is how to reduce poverty so we don't have to be charitable. Which is an economics problem.

8) taxes. People always whine about taxes. We do have to reform them, especially the AMT. Maybe this can be done, but I'm not hopeful.

9) Immigration. I'm surprised this is so low with all the xenophobic media out there.

Guess what I don't see on here. Education reforms. Energy policy. Foreign trade and labour issues. Maybe these are less important to the common person's mind, but they're high on the list of public needs. I also don't see abortion, gay marriage and 'family values'. Good riddance.

ironic

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/05/pakistan/index.html

Anyone else think it's mildly ironical that Bush is telling someone else that they're undermining democracy?

Anyone else think Pakistan should have been the second country to invade after Afghanistan (if there has to be invasions, they were 3 actually, Saudi being 1, Afghanistan 2)? What they have nukes and F-16s instead of decaying chemical weapons and no air force? There were 3 countries with relatively moderate Islamic roots and governments prior to 9/11. Turkey is acting more belligerent over the Armenian massacres resolution (which bowed to the pressure and didn't pass) and just elected a harder Islamist government (albeit with the curious free-market reform attitude that we like). Pakistan has gone steadily into military hardliners in order to satisfy our anti-terrorist demands and continue repressing extremist elements that have grown up in the wake of Afghanistan. And then there's Indonesia. Which actually seems to be doing relatively fine, mostly because Islam is a bit wacky and less invasive there (more like Christianity worked in Europe post-Reformation, apart from the wars) in comparison to the Arabic countries. 2 out of 3 are failing because of our policies forcing more active and repressive policies in response or cooperation.

It is true that terrorist elements and religious extremism need to be combated, even actively suppressed and destroyed by force if need be. But Islamic countries had some positive ability to repress the more dangerous jihadist root sub-culture of terrorists which we tossed aside by ignoring the culture gap. We have seemed to assume that other countries live by the 'there is an American inside of everyone' routine which isn't quite accurate. Islam, for better or worse, maintains a strong and visible presence in Middle Eastern life. There are definite problems with its track record as regards many things (women in particular). Some of these things are reforming, slowly. In some places, much more rapidly. Moderate interpretations of Islam will never quite match the idealized separation of church and state that Americans are grappling with (and often failing ourselves). But it can maintain levels of personal freedom and it certainly has no qualms about raising standards of living through economics and trade. In the long term, it's far easier to recruit suicide bombers and other free radicals from a society in militant repression and economic depression than in a land rife with more positive opportunity. We have mistakenly believed that freedom is more important than opportunity or hope. In this error, we're fostering a new generation of extremism in places we would have never even seen or thought of. Pakistan at least has some hope of democracy (Bhutto for example) and prosperity instead of endless terror. But it's not reasonable for us to be telling others that they're endangering democracy when we don't seem to be able to defend it here.

colbert

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/31/colbert.sc/index.html

And people don't take me seriously? While pundits complain about the 'mockery of the political process', the exposure that that political process has had as a result highlights the need for more interesting candidates anyway.

perverted language

"A Racist: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e. people of European descent) living in the United States regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination."

I'm quite certain this is not the correct definition, but since I'm white, I'm obviously biased under this definition and my opinion is irrelevant. This is however the definition provided by some universities. This would explain the ease with which it is claimed when it doesn't actually exist, or at least the misapplication of the term.

..>..>

1.	a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

..>..>

2.	a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

..>..>

3.	hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Those are official definitions. They offer up the idea that racism only exists where belief and action indicate a premacy of one race over another/others. Therefore the idea that someone cannot act to impose their beliefs upon those other races doesn't matter. And the condition of someone as a particular race without the associated belief of that race's superiority is not a precursor for racism.

People need to learn the difference between prejudices or stereotypes and actual racism. One is stupid, the other is merely ignorant. I had this discussion yesterday with the concept that blacks like fried chicken. 'Everybody' who eats chicken likes fried chicken. Where does skin color enter the equation? Or hip-hop/jazz music. The top consumers of gangsta rap were suburban white kids. But the stereotype says black people. Jazz was popular with just about anybody at its height and it's often claimed to be one of America's top cultural achievements internationally (read: by white Europeans/Americans). I'm pretty sure this is ignorance and some blank stupidity at work. Racism on the other hand, that's just rank stupidity. It's often very well informed, albeit from a one-sided dimension that nobody else lives in. But still, it'd be nice if we could use terms in a way that actually proscribes with their definition rather than create these blanket proclamation (patriotism is another one that's losing out).

reefer madness?

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/on-the-legalization-or-not-of-marijuana/more-1953

Here's the problem with this anti-pot argument. Basing the analogy of speeding creates a leading argument. The assumption is that speeding causes accidents. But statistically, not speeding, or at least driving too slow, is just as, if not more, dangerous. The fact that driving requires a certain amount of attention and responsibility creates an immediate counter-argument. Marijuana and alcohol require a certain level of responsible use, just as that undertaken driving a car. Driving around or performing demanding tasks entails increased risks that are potentially hazardous to others. Thus my conception is not that bland use and possession should be punished. But that irresponsible use should be, just as irresponsible or hazardous behavior is punished in other forums. People who drive around and then cause accidents under such influences should be harshly and severely punished, because their actions had both the accident and a premeditated choice that risked the accident (although it could be said that some elderly people and teens should be in the same boat here). People who amend their habits to provide a reasonable level of caution and safety are to be ignored. Someone who is in a car and intoxicated is not a cause of concern unless they are operating it or directly interfering with the operator. Speeding, while it often pertains a certain level of risk and 'dangerous fun', is often a most prudent way to operate a car. Recklessly speeding, such as weaving erratically at high speed on a crowded freeway, is not. Why the assumption is that any level of activity in this manner is dangerous and hazardous to society as a whole is made is beyond my ability to explain. Suffices to say, the assumption is false. There are a good number of activities that if taken to extremes, such as eating fast food or other junk, smoking, bungee jumping, might be overtly hazardous to individuals and even those around them. But if people are encouraged to exploit these dangers with a moderate view, then we might have the ability to remove those hazards altogether.

The idea that legal restrictions will increase it's use are likewise foolish. Studies have shown that speed rates on the highways are virtually identical before and after speed limits were changed; people drive in a manner which seems best. Pot or alcohol consumption is made generally in a responsible manner by many adults, and their influence on the upcoming generations should be lauded. While it is possible that marijuana use would spike upwards with immediate legalization, its immediate costs in social damage and stigma that it provides would be removed as well. There's plenty of psychological evidence that suggests that part of the appeal of smoking for teens is that it is a forbidden fruit. The appeal for pot is no different, except that it is a forbidden fruit for adults as well. I suspect that while experimental use may increase for people of all ages, this use can be regulated and contained more easily if exposure is more adult and intelligent in it's manner, with a higher premium maintained on treatment for addictive use, rather than it's current manner of arrest, interdiction and detainment. The long arm of the law has done little, if anything at all, to slow the advance into society as a regular or at least recreational product. Perhaps if we changed tactics we might have more success at restricting and removing it's pestilent influences and manifestations in our society and more tolerance for a moderate recreational or medicinal usage.


Incidentally. I don't personally smoke pot or drink, and see no reason to engage in these practices. But I also don't see the point in draconian tactics futilely trying to eliminate a product that poses minimal risks to the user and, if used responsibly, no risks to society at large. With proper and more intelligently designed anti-drug campaigns, funded by the regulated taxes gathered by legal use, production, and distribution and a legal means of purchase, use, and distribution that is properly controlled or monitored, we're in no greater danger and significantly reduce the strain on police to deal with more pressing concerns. This idea does not imply for example that higher grade narcotics should be made legal (it's a possibility too though I admit I have some reservations), rather that the tactics of treatment and prevention/education are simply far more cost-effective than the current means of incarceration and detainment and a far more effective deterrent than imprisonment and fines. Nor does it imply that if a majority wills it, it is right. It is certainly not healthy to simply permit our society at large to consume potentially dangerous products without some constraints.