Having been out of the country (again) for a few weeks, I'm trying to get myself back on the stick writing-wise. Though I have to say that there's not much in the way of happy news to be writing about - the U.S. economy on the verge of a recession, people losing their houses, the environment going to shit, the feuding amongst Democratic party candidates becoming mind-numbingly cacophonous, and now I hear that Obama's "universal" health care plan actually doesn't cover everyone.
This is a short post, and for that I apologize. Go watch some Keith Olbermann. Or drink some champagne. I'm sure things will look better tomorrow morning.
Monday, 31 December 2007
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Finally! A Rich Guy I can get behind
Don't read this post yet. Just watch the video (you might have to scroll down the page to get to it).
Warren Buffett is awesome. I cannot hate a rich person who is willing to give up some of their wealth when they see the horribly unfair monetary treatment they get. And I don't say this because I live on a measly $20k per year in an expensive city. I usually qualify for a tax refund anyway. But people like my parents, who *do* end up paying the government well more than what they need to keep to save for retirement and live somewhat well as it is - well, they deserve lower taxes. That's it.
And they know they ought to be keeping more of their money. But because they themselves choose to *believe* the conservative (read: 99% of the fuckall wealthy) rhetoric, they think that the only solution to their problem is to get rid of taxes altogether. We should not be surprised that the fuckall wealthy are riding on the 'get rid of taxes' wagon. We *should* be surprised that our parents, the media that informs them, and the government fail to communicate clearly the sheer surfeit of money that the wealthiest people in our country pull in for themselves, and the relative lack of money they must funnel back into the public domain.
I am not advocating communism here. We all pay money to the government so that we can have streets to drive on, people to help us in emergencies, people to make sure our air is clean and our products are safe, parks and sidewalks to walk on, schools for our kids with already-underpaid teachers - not to mention the (comparatively inexpensive) public services that are necessary to provide for the underprivileged. Don't even get me started on the relative lack of money given for welfare/food stamps/homeless shelters/"handouts" that the conservatives are always railing about. (But if you *are* interested to see where your taxes are going, look here). As I said, we all already pay money to the government, and that is not going to change. I just think that the wealthy should not get special treatment that helps them get wealthier at a faster rate than our parents. And I think #3 wealthiest dude in the country backs me up here.
Unfortunately, unless Mr. Buffett has the cajones to fork out the millions of dollars it would take to get lobbyists in Washington changing the tax code (as if I needed anything more to support my assertion that the wealthy are heavily invested in, well, their money), his words will stay only words.
Warren Buffett is awesome. I cannot hate a rich person who is willing to give up some of their wealth when they see the horribly unfair monetary treatment they get. And I don't say this because I live on a measly $20k per year in an expensive city. I usually qualify for a tax refund anyway. But people like my parents, who *do* end up paying the government well more than what they need to keep to save for retirement and live somewhat well as it is - well, they deserve lower taxes. That's it.
And they know they ought to be keeping more of their money. But because they themselves choose to *believe* the conservative (read: 99% of the fuckall wealthy) rhetoric, they think that the only solution to their problem is to get rid of taxes altogether. We should not be surprised that the fuckall wealthy are riding on the 'get rid of taxes' wagon. We *should* be surprised that our parents, the media that informs them, and the government fail to communicate clearly the sheer surfeit of money that the wealthiest people in our country pull in for themselves, and the relative lack of money they must funnel back into the public domain.
I am not advocating communism here. We all pay money to the government so that we can have streets to drive on, people to help us in emergencies, people to make sure our air is clean and our products are safe, parks and sidewalks to walk on, schools for our kids with already-underpaid teachers - not to mention the (comparatively inexpensive) public services that are necessary to provide for the underprivileged. Don't even get me started on the relative lack of money given for welfare/food stamps/homeless shelters/"handouts" that the conservatives are always railing about. (But if you *are* interested to see where your taxes are going, look here). As I said, we all already pay money to the government, and that is not going to change. I just think that the wealthy should not get special treatment that helps them get wealthier at a faster rate than our parents. And I think #3 wealthiest dude in the country backs me up here.
Unfortunately, unless Mr. Buffett has the cajones to fork out the millions of dollars it would take to get lobbyists in Washington changing the tax code (as if I needed anything more to support my assertion that the wealthy are heavily invested in, well, their money), his words will stay only words.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
The Fires
So, fire + evacuees + old terrorist confession = an excuse for Fox news to get your brain thinking more Bushily.
I read it on RawStory (which includes the original Fox News broadcast in all its racist fear-mongering glory), but this youtube video gives you the lighthearted version. Keith Olbermann makes it seem okay, or at least a little laughable, that Fox News took a 2003 terror warning and made it look like these fires all around L.A. were started by Al Quaeda.
Now you just sit, and think. Families are being evacuated, homes are being lost, firefighters are being injured, and all our lungs look like freshly-paved asphalt. And Rupert Murdoch and the conservative media machine want to use all this to make you spend your money on bombs and guns and private soldiers, send your family overseas to kill and get traumatised, and then vote Republican in 2008.
Are you angry yet? Yeah, me too.
I read it on RawStory (which includes the original Fox News broadcast in all its racist fear-mongering glory), but this youtube video gives you the lighthearted version. Keith Olbermann makes it seem okay, or at least a little laughable, that Fox News took a 2003 terror warning and made it look like these fires all around L.A. were started by Al Quaeda.
Now you just sit, and think. Families are being evacuated, homes are being lost, firefighters are being injured, and all our lungs look like freshly-paved asphalt. And Rupert Murdoch and the conservative media machine want to use all this to make you spend your money on bombs and guns and private soldiers, send your family overseas to kill and get traumatised, and then vote Republican in 2008.
Are you angry yet? Yeah, me too.
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
hundred dolla bills y'all
Just read from this article from RawStory that the Iraq/Afghanistan war effort, over the next decade (and possibly including what we've already spent - that part isn't clear) will cost more than $2 trillion, with over $700 billion in INTEREST - because we are spending borrowed money.
W.T.F.
No, seriously, let me write that all out:
$2,700,000,000,000.00 total
$705,000,000,000.00 in interest
RawStory estimates that this amounts to $8000 per person in this country. And I thought Republicans were meant to be fiscally conservative. Yeah, that's right Republicans, you just got told. Feel the shame.
W.T.F.
No, seriously, let me write that all out:
$2,700,000,000,000.00 total
$705,000,000,000.00 in interest
RawStory estimates that this amounts to $8000 per person in this country. And I thought Republicans were meant to be fiscally conservative. Yeah, that's right Republicans, you just got told. Feel the shame.
Monday, 22 October 2007
omgzzz
I've been out of contact with too many people for too long. I needed to go off the grid for a couple months to study for an exam. But that stage of my life is so over - because I passed. And I never have to worry about it again. So stay tuned for more awesome blogging from yours truly.
Saturday, 1 September 2007
A potential kick in the face for male politicians
Feminist strategies have taken many different forms over the years. In the 1960s, women fought for equal pay by saying that they were just as qualified/smart/ambitious as men, that they could perform the same roles. In the late 19th century, women convinced the American college system that they needed access to higher education. Their reasoning? - they needed to be smart so that they could provide a good at-home education for America's sons.
What does this have to do with the present day? Well, one of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton will probably not win a national election in 2008 is because much of our society still thinks (at least subconsciously) that women are fundamentally more emotional (read: less rational) than men. We get moody, we change our minds frequently, we cry, we break dishes, we are 'pussies'. Putting the rational/emotional debate aside, if it were the case that a candidate had less 'rational' ability, they probably would not be as desirable a political leader.
Now, this article about one of the side-effects of Viagra indicates that taking this drug might make you a more 'emotional' person. Viagra apparently increases the production of a "love hormone." [Cue satire] Now we all know that that feeling of love can mess with our decision-making skills. And we all know that some large percentage of those crusty white guys in Washington are popping the little blue pills. So how can we trust political leaders who take drugs that compromise their rational abilities and risk the safety of our nation? These men are turning themselves into women.
So I propose that we ban the use of Viagra by political leaders, police officers, men in the military, CEOs, market analysts, and anyone who clings to the myth of male rationality as a justification for not allowing women into their field. Let's keep male space pussy-free.
What does this have to do with the present day? Well, one of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton will probably not win a national election in 2008 is because much of our society still thinks (at least subconsciously) that women are fundamentally more emotional (read: less rational) than men. We get moody, we change our minds frequently, we cry, we break dishes, we are 'pussies'. Putting the rational/emotional debate aside, if it were the case that a candidate had less 'rational' ability, they probably would not be as desirable a political leader.
Now, this article about one of the side-effects of Viagra indicates that taking this drug might make you a more 'emotional' person. Viagra apparently increases the production of a "love hormone." [Cue satire] Now we all know that that feeling of love can mess with our decision-making skills. And we all know that some large percentage of those crusty white guys in Washington are popping the little blue pills. So how can we trust political leaders who take drugs that compromise their rational abilities and risk the safety of our nation? These men are turning themselves into women.
So I propose that we ban the use of Viagra by political leaders, police officers, men in the military, CEOs, market analysts, and anyone who clings to the myth of male rationality as a justification for not allowing women into their field. Let's keep male space pussy-free.
Thursday, 2 August 2007
Radical transformation
So I once wrote an essay here about the possible detrimental side-effects on the psyche of modern technological recording/documenting devices.
A few days ago, Timmy and I were having a conversation about music writing and the struggle to escape the 'please your teachers' mentality, the struggle to transform into a mentality where you strive to become yourself and please yourself without outside approval. Tim suggested that people have trouble making that transition because they are conditioned to please others in school and at home all through their childhood.
And a very radical idea occurred to me. I thought about the fact that, in the 19th century, all kinds of now-unethical methods were used in school and in the home to discipline and educate children. These children, though, managed (for the most part) to turn out to be fairly responsible, intelligent, self-directed adults. How can this be? What has changed between then and now?
My answer is psychology. 19th century society did not think about the effects of childhood discipline on the adult. The adult is not a direct outgrowth of the child. Now, however, we assume that everything we experience as children affects us as adults. We assume that our personalities are formed early on in our lives, that it resists change as we move into adulthood. But what if this theory is not exactly correct? We know that humans have imperfect memories - that our brains easily forget or misremember the past, even ourselves as we were in the past. What if we have been conditioned against allowing ourselves to forget, allowing ourselves to make a cognitive break with our past?
Certainly the modern prevalence of photo albums, family videos, and keepsakes/souvenirs tend to preserve our memories and keep them authentic, tend to remind us of our past, how we were in the past. What would happen if we stopped believing in the effects of our childhood on our current selves? Could that improve our chances of growing up, becoming self-directed, understanding who we are and who we want to be?
It's a radical idea.
A few days ago, Timmy and I were having a conversation about music writing and the struggle to escape the 'please your teachers' mentality, the struggle to transform into a mentality where you strive to become yourself and please yourself without outside approval. Tim suggested that people have trouble making that transition because they are conditioned to please others in school and at home all through their childhood.
And a very radical idea occurred to me. I thought about the fact that, in the 19th century, all kinds of now-unethical methods were used in school and in the home to discipline and educate children. These children, though, managed (for the most part) to turn out to be fairly responsible, intelligent, self-directed adults. How can this be? What has changed between then and now?
My answer is psychology. 19th century society did not think about the effects of childhood discipline on the adult. The adult is not a direct outgrowth of the child. Now, however, we assume that everything we experience as children affects us as adults. We assume that our personalities are formed early on in our lives, that it resists change as we move into adulthood. But what if this theory is not exactly correct? We know that humans have imperfect memories - that our brains easily forget or misremember the past, even ourselves as we were in the past. What if we have been conditioned against allowing ourselves to forget, allowing ourselves to make a cognitive break with our past?
Certainly the modern prevalence of photo albums, family videos, and keepsakes/souvenirs tend to preserve our memories and keep them authentic, tend to remind us of our past, how we were in the past. What would happen if we stopped believing in the effects of our childhood on our current selves? Could that improve our chances of growing up, becoming self-directed, understanding who we are and who we want to be?
It's a radical idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
