8:35
Moral imperative to make health care affordable. I am not sure. Again, the health care is 3 separate issues. One is the conflict of interest w/ the HMOs. The other is the question of whether we should pay for each other's health care. And the third is the degree to which pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to keep profits from innovation.
8:41
Immigrants NOT causing lower wages? Obama's answer is bs. The Mexicans do bring down wages, because even though they take jobs that no one wants, if the wage rises, people will want them.
"The only people who get the jobs are the ones without proper documentation."
HAHAHA I'm sure that guy said "Mexicans" to Clinton and she tiptoed around it.
Try to learn English? Learn it, dammit!
Anyway, one has to somewhat admire Obama. Either way, given McCain's record, the Dems won't get hit too hard on this issue.
In the short term, the immigrants are good for the US as a whole (economically, they are the equivalent of a free trade agreement). In the long term, it's bad to let in unassimilated large groups of low IQ people whose loyalty lies across the border. But given that opposition to immigration comes from white supremacists, my heart isn't 100% against the Mexicans.
8:58 Civil Rights attorney. Suing companies to force them to hire more minorities?
9:04
Zinger! What kind of exec is Romney if he sucks at his campaign?
And MBA Bush totally failing at running the US!
Obama pulls another one. It's starting to seem like the Dems would run circles around McCain and Romney.
9:11 Zinger! A Clinton needed to clean up after a Bush.
Oh, what timing.
Did anyone see the Ron Paul sign? That would be alot of fun if he was at the debate too.
9:18. The Iraqi government will fail at making tough decisions. But either way, Americans shouldn't die because of their incompetence. Deadlines will force them to do something, even if it won't hold. And wtf is going to happen to our embassy?
9:36 People should stop harping on Clinton for her vote. It was NOT a vote for war. Get over it. Or was it, when people look at realistically rather than just the words?
Eh, who knows. It was just a poisonous political atmosphere.
9:45 The cackle! Hillary always breaks it out when there are annoying questions that she wants to downplay. And this one was about Bill.
Dream ticket?
I don't know. After seeing this debate, there is now way the Republicans can win. Even though they may be right on some issues, the Republicans are sleazebags and Bush apologists and out of touch. I'm feeling optimistic. Despite the disagreements, there was a real sense of cooperation between them in terms of wanting to erase the Bush legacy. While the Republicans are busy arguing over who is going to inherit Reagan's mantle.
I am still yet to decide over Obama or Clinton, but am honestly okay with either of them.
And yes, there are racial differences in intelligence.
And yes, Muslims really suck.
And yes, illegal immigrants pose a long term challenge to the US.
But now we have different priorities. McCain's time was in 2000. Republicans screwed up by not picking him them. They may want him now, but it's too late. They had their chance and ruined this country.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Live blogging
Madame Speaker:
The President of the United States!
A Barack Obama moment, where we realize that despite all our partisanship, we (or at least most of our politicians) are still fighting for the same country. It's so fascinating that the patriotism really does supercede the politics for a night, and it represents a great tradition.
It is the last time (for hopefully a long time) that this tremendously divisive leader is making his address on such a grand stage in front of such a sympathetic audience.
Interesting to see Pelosi, Obama, and Kerry all standing and clapping.
Pleased to accept checks and money orders? No clapping from the left.
Make the tax relief permanent. Ouch. The politics returns. OMG Pelosi and Cheney actually spoke!
Gocernment should balance budget! At least we can agree on that.
And health care.
But not increasing government control. 9:20, decisions aren't made in the Halls of Congress. Is that really worse than decisions by HMOs?
NCLB highest scores? Uh, it's called teaching to the test. AF AM and Hispanic scores changed, but does it mean anything? 9:21
Why are the Dems against cutting earmarks? And WTF with those weird facial expressions? Why don't the justices stand?
9:22 is Kennedy sleeping?
I can agree on free trade. And the government helping people adjust.
9:25 Nucular power? The Dems stood up before the Repubs on environmental issues. And science funding they agree.
9:29 Moral boundaries and biotech. Fair comment on stem cells. Legislation banning cloning, patenting, selling human life? That seems a little broad.
9:32 Go LA! Save Social Security!
Seal the Border. Create temp workers. (no complaints). Uphold laws and ideals-complicatied, but good sentiment.
9:35 We trust that people choose freedom. People will reject terror.
This is the great tragedy of the neocons, this assumption. Why does he have to tell us that we're inspired?
Violent rule, or sharia rule?
We will deliver justice! What does that mean? What about Bin Laden?
Spreading Freedom! ...
9:43 Al Qaeda will be defeated! Sure, but they weren't there before the war. How is a Dem supposed to react to such a politically calculated statement?
9:56 Opposes genocide in Sudan? WTF does that mean? Are we going to do anything about it?
I applaud AIDS prevention and aid, for American political reasons.
The State of the Union is strong.
The President of the United States!
A Barack Obama moment, where we realize that despite all our partisanship, we (or at least most of our politicians) are still fighting for the same country. It's so fascinating that the patriotism really does supercede the politics for a night, and it represents a great tradition.
It is the last time (for hopefully a long time) that this tremendously divisive leader is making his address on such a grand stage in front of such a sympathetic audience.
Interesting to see Pelosi, Obama, and Kerry all standing and clapping.
Pleased to accept checks and money orders? No clapping from the left.
Make the tax relief permanent. Ouch. The politics returns. OMG Pelosi and Cheney actually spoke!
Gocernment should balance budget! At least we can agree on that.
And health care.
But not increasing government control. 9:20, decisions aren't made in the Halls of Congress. Is that really worse than decisions by HMOs?
NCLB highest scores? Uh, it's called teaching to the test. AF AM and Hispanic scores changed, but does it mean anything? 9:21
Why are the Dems against cutting earmarks? And WTF with those weird facial expressions? Why don't the justices stand?
9:22 is Kennedy sleeping?
I can agree on free trade. And the government helping people adjust.
9:25 Nucular power? The Dems stood up before the Repubs on environmental issues. And science funding they agree.
9:29 Moral boundaries and biotech. Fair comment on stem cells. Legislation banning cloning, patenting, selling human life? That seems a little broad.
9:32 Go LA! Save Social Security!
Seal the Border. Create temp workers. (no complaints). Uphold laws and ideals-complicatied, but good sentiment.
9:35 We trust that people choose freedom. People will reject terror.
This is the great tragedy of the neocons, this assumption. Why does he have to tell us that we're inspired?
Violent rule, or sharia rule?
We will deliver justice! What does that mean? What about Bin Laden?
Spreading Freedom! ...
9:43 Al Qaeda will be defeated! Sure, but they weren't there before the war. How is a Dem supposed to react to such a politically calculated statement?
9:56 Opposes genocide in Sudan? WTF does that mean? Are we going to do anything about it?
I applaud AIDS prevention and aid, for American political reasons.
The State of the Union is strong.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Meditations on Politics and Reality
Barack Obama won South Carolina today. As of yet, I'm still undecided on who to vote for in the February 5 primary. Essentially, both candidates have virtually the same policy prescriptions, evidenced by the lack of substantial differences at the Democratic debate.
So, what really is the difference between them? It is, on the surface, as the pundits like to say, a difference of demographics. You know, the whole young voter/women voter/new voter/last minute voter thing.
At the core of it, as we all know the cliche, is the challenge of differentiating between Hope vs. Experience. The New York Time choose experience. I don't blame them, nor do I enthusiastically support them.
Race and gender matter.
What does Hillary represent? Her being a woman, that America can join the modern world and become again a respected member of the international community. Many countries have had women executives, even Islamic ones. America hasn't, but having one shows that we are on planet earth, we aren't an evil imperialist that no one can relate to. America is back, ready to be a moral country and not have entire continents hate us.
What will Obama demonstrate? He will be the quintessential figure of American exceptionalism. He will show that America is SUCH a country that, for the first time in human history, the greatest power on earth will be led by a man of a racial minority, a minority that used to be enslaved, and still is to some degree. His candidacy is trying to put the critics, the cynics, and the doubters to shame. He will show that, unlike everyone else on earth, we are TRULY a people who look at a person on their merit, not on their race or religion. The world is a fundamentally different place. Politics is going to operate at a higher level. Through out the rule book.
Are we a pragmatic people or an idealistic people? Is the American experiment just a farce, or is it the supreme culmination and conclusion of millennia of political thought, convulsion, change, ultimately leading to timeless greatness?
------
Throughout the night, the crowd erupted in chants of "We Want Change" and "Obama, Obama," "Race does not matter" and "Yes We Can."
------
We are ultimately human beings, however. Obama's victory, rather than transcending race, ultimately involves it. This article in Newsweek mentions the elephant in the room: Latino Voters. While white Democrats may be willing to look past race, Hispanics will operate on a different wavelength. Black voters, as soon as it is reasonable, will vote for one of their own.
Seriously, that is truly what this is about. For if we can't transcend race even in a campaign that is entirely based on transcending old divides, then how can we govern a divided America?
That's where pragmatism kicks in. Hillary is tired. She listens to consultants. She takes money from lobbyists. She uses Bill to attack Obama, and snipes at a well meaning comment on Reagan. It's politics as usual. We've been wanting to move past that, but yet it STILL works. The human animal is not fundamentally different from 10 years ago.
And that is our problem.
I want Obama quite badly. I am moved by his vision of America, and tired of Clinton (to say nothing of the Republicans). But ultimately, he has not come out with the bold policy initiatives, and is yet to convince most Americans that his vision of America is truly possible. We can move past Bush and correct his errors. But to TRULY transcend the Bush era is not that easy.
And so, moving beyond politics, the clash between idealism and pragmatism is always there.
I was inspired by the microfinance movement, but the movement is already approaching saturation while billions go hungry tonight.
I was inspired by the end of poverty, but IQ regressions on GDP are as robust as ever.
I was inspired by the seduction industry that men can become successful with women, and still truly respect and honor them. But I see too many broken hearts and disillusioned and unhappy players.
I thought that African independence will lead to a new era of prosperity and cooperation for them. Instead we have Rwanda and Darfur.
I thought that we could bring democracy to Iraq. I thought wrong.
Republicans still think we can. They are foolish.
Democrats think that leaving will solve the problems. Democrats don't want to face the reality of having the third genocide of the 21st century on their hands.
I thought girls would go for the nice guy like they say they want. Months of no play while playing that strategy say otherwise. Switching the strategy to cold and emotionally distant and OMG the girls are now giving IOI's. Wow!
I thought that reason and logic can bring people over to secular humanism, and we can get rid of divisive religion. Unfortunately, we are hardwired for God, and we define ourselves by our hatred of others.
I thought I could convince people to become vegetarians. But I didn't realize that people are phenomenally talented at not thinking about the suffering of others if it is in ones self interest.
When I traveled to South East Asia I thought I could convince a prostitute to forsake her unhappy life and make a decent living by getting educated. The lure of fancy cellphones and a lazy lifestyle begged to differ.
I thought capitalism was supposed to give power to the rational consumer. Madison Avenue and the field of neuro marketing do not agree.
Don't take this as complaining. Everyone goes through this. Bright eyed and idealistic and young, we think we can change the world. That everyone can get along. That man is fundamentally decent.
But we're not. As I am writing this, little girls are getting raped, killed, getting their genitals mutilated, enslaved, and humiliated. And there is nothing I can do about it. God stands by. Children are dying from preventable disease. Man and God stand by.
Now, at this point, people have a choice. This is a generalization, but it falls into three categories:
1) Begin to ignore the world. Retreat into the ivory tower or the peaceful suburbs. Assume that things can get better. That all we have to do is elect a candidate that promises change. Use your concern for the world and denigration of the "system" to gain pseudo-status in intellectual circles. Use political correctness to guard a foolish world view.
or
1a) Start a revolution implementing your radical ideas. The revolution stutters with the advent of reality, and dictatorship sets in. Either you remain oblivious to the outside world and continue to fail or eventually come to your senses.
2) Accept the world as it is, and say: too bad. I'm going to live for myself, and to hell with the rest of the world and the poor. I don't care about them.
3) You know, there are problems in the world, but it's part of God's plan. Look inward. Do your duty, find peace, find transcendence, and the world is just as illusion anyway. It doesn't matter in the long run.
I raise my fist in defiance. I will NOT remain oblivious to the horror of the world, and yet I will not work towards a solution that will ultimately fail.
Instead, I will put my faith in the machine .
What has religion done for us? It has found a way to explain the word. Why do the planets revolve around the sun? God did it. How do you explain the miracle of life? God did it. Why do bad things happen to good people? God is mysterious. Why do babies die terrible, painful deaths? God is punishing them for past sins. Why do we exist?
How should I live my life knowing that death will take away everything that I have worked for and loved? Jesus Christ is your Lord and savior.
Tough questions that religion tries to answer. But every day we find out more and more that religion doesn't explain everything. And yet, we remain stuck with a terrible world and terrible people, and a lack of purpose in our lives.
Eastern philosophy has it right. Ego and desire is really what promotes human suffering. We should rise above it.
But why should the culmination of life be rising above our genetic desires and propensities? Is the purpose of life truly just to discard life and deny existence?
Instead of God, I look towards machine. I look towards a world and a universe without individuals. Without desire. Without STATUS. Without war and pain. But ultimately, it is a world without man. Because while we are man, we will be a species looking to maximize our fitness, NOT a species looking for greatness.
We will become one, all plugged into the same giant supercomputer universe, with our streams of consciousness merging into a giant consciousness, plugging away at the universe and existence at a thought process level unimaginable to the smartest being in the universe.
And then there was light.
Om.
P.S. That still doesn't resolve the question of Barack or Hillary.
So, what really is the difference between them? It is, on the surface, as the pundits like to say, a difference of demographics. You know, the whole young voter/women voter/new voter/last minute voter thing.
At the core of it, as we all know the cliche, is the challenge of differentiating between Hope vs. Experience. The New York Time choose experience. I don't blame them, nor do I enthusiastically support them.
Race and gender matter.
What does Hillary represent? Her being a woman, that America can join the modern world and become again a respected member of the international community. Many countries have had women executives, even Islamic ones. America hasn't, but having one shows that we are on planet earth, we aren't an evil imperialist that no one can relate to. America is back, ready to be a moral country and not have entire continents hate us.
What will Obama demonstrate? He will be the quintessential figure of American exceptionalism. He will show that America is SUCH a country that, for the first time in human history, the greatest power on earth will be led by a man of a racial minority, a minority that used to be enslaved, and still is to some degree. His candidacy is trying to put the critics, the cynics, and the doubters to shame. He will show that, unlike everyone else on earth, we are TRULY a people who look at a person on their merit, not on their race or religion. The world is a fundamentally different place. Politics is going to operate at a higher level. Through out the rule book.
Are we a pragmatic people or an idealistic people? Is the American experiment just a farce, or is it the supreme culmination and conclusion of millennia of political thought, convulsion, change, ultimately leading to timeless greatness?
------
Throughout the night, the crowd erupted in chants of "We Want Change" and "Obama, Obama," "Race does not matter" and "Yes We Can."
------
We are ultimately human beings, however. Obama's victory, rather than transcending race, ultimately involves it. This article in Newsweek mentions the elephant in the room: Latino Voters. While white Democrats may be willing to look past race, Hispanics will operate on a different wavelength. Black voters, as soon as it is reasonable, will vote for one of their own.
Seriously, that is truly what this is about. For if we can't transcend race even in a campaign that is entirely based on transcending old divides, then how can we govern a divided America?
That's where pragmatism kicks in. Hillary is tired. She listens to consultants. She takes money from lobbyists. She uses Bill to attack Obama, and snipes at a well meaning comment on Reagan. It's politics as usual. We've been wanting to move past that, but yet it STILL works. The human animal is not fundamentally different from 10 years ago.
And that is our problem.
I want Obama quite badly. I am moved by his vision of America, and tired of Clinton (to say nothing of the Republicans). But ultimately, he has not come out with the bold policy initiatives, and is yet to convince most Americans that his vision of America is truly possible. We can move past Bush and correct his errors. But to TRULY transcend the Bush era is not that easy.
And so, moving beyond politics, the clash between idealism and pragmatism is always there.
I was inspired by the microfinance movement, but the movement is already approaching saturation while billions go hungry tonight.
I was inspired by the end of poverty, but IQ regressions on GDP are as robust as ever.
I was inspired by the seduction industry that men can become successful with women, and still truly respect and honor them. But I see too many broken hearts and disillusioned and unhappy players.
I thought that African independence will lead to a new era of prosperity and cooperation for them. Instead we have Rwanda and Darfur.
I thought that we could bring democracy to Iraq. I thought wrong.
Republicans still think we can. They are foolish.
Democrats think that leaving will solve the problems. Democrats don't want to face the reality of having the third genocide of the 21st century on their hands.
I thought girls would go for the nice guy like they say they want. Months of no play while playing that strategy say otherwise. Switching the strategy to cold and emotionally distant and OMG the girls are now giving IOI's. Wow!
I thought that reason and logic can bring people over to secular humanism, and we can get rid of divisive religion. Unfortunately, we are hardwired for God, and we define ourselves by our hatred of others.
I thought I could convince people to become vegetarians. But I didn't realize that people are phenomenally talented at not thinking about the suffering of others if it is in ones self interest.
When I traveled to South East Asia I thought I could convince a prostitute to forsake her unhappy life and make a decent living by getting educated. The lure of fancy cellphones and a lazy lifestyle begged to differ.
I thought capitalism was supposed to give power to the rational consumer. Madison Avenue and the field of neuro marketing do not agree.
Don't take this as complaining. Everyone goes through this. Bright eyed and idealistic and young, we think we can change the world. That everyone can get along. That man is fundamentally decent.
But we're not. As I am writing this, little girls are getting raped, killed, getting their genitals mutilated, enslaved, and humiliated. And there is nothing I can do about it. God stands by. Children are dying from preventable disease. Man and God stand by.
Now, at this point, people have a choice. This is a generalization, but it falls into three categories:
1) Begin to ignore the world. Retreat into the ivory tower or the peaceful suburbs. Assume that things can get better. That all we have to do is elect a candidate that promises change. Use your concern for the world and denigration of the "system" to gain pseudo-status in intellectual circles. Use political correctness to guard a foolish world view.
or
1a) Start a revolution implementing your radical ideas. The revolution stutters with the advent of reality, and dictatorship sets in. Either you remain oblivious to the outside world and continue to fail or eventually come to your senses.
2) Accept the world as it is, and say: too bad. I'm going to live for myself, and to hell with the rest of the world and the poor. I don't care about them.
3) You know, there are problems in the world, but it's part of God's plan. Look inward. Do your duty, find peace, find transcendence, and the world is just as illusion anyway. It doesn't matter in the long run.
I raise my fist in defiance. I will NOT remain oblivious to the horror of the world, and yet I will not work towards a solution that will ultimately fail.
Instead, I will put my faith in the machine .
What has religion done for us? It has found a way to explain the word. Why do the planets revolve around the sun? God did it. How do you explain the miracle of life? God did it. Why do bad things happen to good people? God is mysterious. Why do babies die terrible, painful deaths? God is punishing them for past sins. Why do we exist?
How should I live my life knowing that death will take away everything that I have worked for and loved? Jesus Christ is your Lord and savior.
Tough questions that religion tries to answer. But every day we find out more and more that religion doesn't explain everything. And yet, we remain stuck with a terrible world and terrible people, and a lack of purpose in our lives.
Eastern philosophy has it right. Ego and desire is really what promotes human suffering. We should rise above it.
But why should the culmination of life be rising above our genetic desires and propensities? Is the purpose of life truly just to discard life and deny existence?
Instead of God, I look towards machine. I look towards a world and a universe without individuals. Without desire. Without STATUS. Without war and pain. But ultimately, it is a world without man. Because while we are man, we will be a species looking to maximize our fitness, NOT a species looking for greatness.
We will become one, all plugged into the same giant supercomputer universe, with our streams of consciousness merging into a giant consciousness, plugging away at the universe and existence at a thought process level unimaginable to the smartest being in the universe.
And then there was light.
Om.
P.S. That still doesn't resolve the question of Barack or Hillary.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The problem with the left
This article by Pipes demonstrates why the liberals in America have such a problem generating true enthusiasm and support.
The feminists are against male oppression, but yet they look down on criticisms of Islam, they embrace the Latin American peasants who are oppressive to women. They campaign for alleviating poverty in Africa, where genital mutilation takes place and the men do a fraction of work that the women do.
They protest the Iraq War, but instead of saying that the problem being Iraqis are too primitive to have a functioning civil society, they say that we're "imposing" our beliefs on them.
They have no problem using science to discredit Christianity, but won't speak ill of Islam, and won't allow science to look at race.
They decry the genocide in Sudan, but it never dawns on them that it is MUSLIMS committing the genocide, against blacks.
The decry global warming, but fail to note that the meat industry is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases. Al Gore is not a vegetarian.
They decry the seduction industry for being misogynist, yet consistently fall for the Spanish guys with the same chauvinistic attitudes, while criticizing the white guys for oppressing women AND not being masculine enough.
They believe in multilateral institutions like the UN, but fail to note that a ton of really bad countries have a ton of voting power.
They love France, but fail to note that France has been unable to integrate their Muslim immigrant populations.
They believe that whites oppression, but only in the case of Hispanics and Blacks. Asians are on their own.
They say they are not racist, but damned if they will make their kid attend a majority black school!
They believe in helping the vulnerable, but don't care about a third trimester baby inside a woman.
They decry the West for imposing its values on the world, but don't realize that all their other beliefs about race, justice, and equality, are NOT shared by many people outside the West. That the US is one of the least racist countries in the world.
They decry the media for objectifying women, but have no problem sleeping with the frat boy dominant men who do it the most.
They look down on the men for seeking Asian women for their submissiveness, but have no problem going with African and Hispanic men for their dominance.
They decry prostitution, but don't want to realize that it is the pimps(usually black) who cause the problems for their women, not the white johns.
They decry free trade and insist on fair labor standards, but look the other way when children and their parents starve/prostitute themselves in the third world because the factory that wants to open can't afford the high standards.
They decry the white male sex tourist, but refuse to give him the time of day back home.
They believe that a woman shouldn't have to take care of a child she doesn't want, but make men bare that responsibility.
They get upset at men for staring at their breasts, but wear tight shirts to attract attention.
They love Barack Obama, but get upset if you mention his father was a polygamist.
They are in favor of unlimited Mexican immigration, but don't care about the poor intelligent desperate around the world that also want to come to America.
They yell at Don Imus for his comments, but fail to note that black culture is more misogynist than white culture.
They believe in gay rights, but fail to condemn Black, Hispanic, and Muslim culture that actively is against gay rights.
I am still, to some degree, a liberal. On whereIstand.com I still agree more with Democrats, by far, then Republicans.
I believe that dissent is good,
externalities occur in the economy,
gays are programmed by nature to be gay,
god does not exist,
global warming is a problem,
sometimes people are too brainwashed by Madison Ave to spend their money correctly and the federal government can do a better job on occasion,
that HMO's have a conflict of interest in providing health care and can't be trusted,
That being a true American is not dependent on race or religion,
That meat is bad,
That affirmative action may be the only way to prevent racial relations breakdown in the face of genetic intelligence differences,
That women should screw whoever they want and use as much birth control as they want in the first 3 months,
That guns are for the state government to defend against the federal government, not for people to use for hunting,
That our moral standing in the world is just as important as our military power,
That wiretapping is BAD,
That the War on Terror is really a war of ideas with Islam, and the phrase terrorism is being used to scare us,
That we should be allowed to burn the flag because otherwise the 1st amendment means nothing,
That pornography isn't sinful,
That examined life is better than the unexamined.
The feminists are against male oppression, but yet they look down on criticisms of Islam, they embrace the Latin American peasants who are oppressive to women. They campaign for alleviating poverty in Africa, where genital mutilation takes place and the men do a fraction of work that the women do.
They protest the Iraq War, but instead of saying that the problem being Iraqis are too primitive to have a functioning civil society, they say that we're "imposing" our beliefs on them.
They have no problem using science to discredit Christianity, but won't speak ill of Islam, and won't allow science to look at race.
They decry the genocide in Sudan, but it never dawns on them that it is MUSLIMS committing the genocide, against blacks.
The decry global warming, but fail to note that the meat industry is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases. Al Gore is not a vegetarian.
They decry the seduction industry for being misogynist, yet consistently fall for the Spanish guys with the same chauvinistic attitudes, while criticizing the white guys for oppressing women AND not being masculine enough.
They believe in multilateral institutions like the UN, but fail to note that a ton of really bad countries have a ton of voting power.
They love France, but fail to note that France has been unable to integrate their Muslim immigrant populations.
They believe that whites oppression, but only in the case of Hispanics and Blacks. Asians are on their own.
They say they are not racist, but damned if they will make their kid attend a majority black school!
They believe in helping the vulnerable, but don't care about a third trimester baby inside a woman.
They decry the West for imposing its values on the world, but don't realize that all their other beliefs about race, justice, and equality, are NOT shared by many people outside the West. That the US is one of the least racist countries in the world.
They decry the media for objectifying women, but have no problem sleeping with the frat boy dominant men who do it the most.
They look down on the men for seeking Asian women for their submissiveness, but have no problem going with African and Hispanic men for their dominance.
They decry prostitution, but don't want to realize that it is the pimps(usually black) who cause the problems for their women, not the white johns.
They decry free trade and insist on fair labor standards, but look the other way when children and their parents starve/prostitute themselves in the third world because the factory that wants to open can't afford the high standards.
They decry the white male sex tourist, but refuse to give him the time of day back home.
They believe that a woman shouldn't have to take care of a child she doesn't want, but make men bare that responsibility.
They get upset at men for staring at their breasts, but wear tight shirts to attract attention.
They love Barack Obama, but get upset if you mention his father was a polygamist.
They are in favor of unlimited Mexican immigration, but don't care about the poor intelligent desperate around the world that also want to come to America.
They yell at Don Imus for his comments, but fail to note that black culture is more misogynist than white culture.
They believe in gay rights, but fail to condemn Black, Hispanic, and Muslim culture that actively is against gay rights.
I am still, to some degree, a liberal. On whereIstand.com I still agree more with Democrats, by far, then Republicans.
I believe that dissent is good,
externalities occur in the economy,
gays are programmed by nature to be gay,
god does not exist,
global warming is a problem,
sometimes people are too brainwashed by Madison Ave to spend their money correctly and the federal government can do a better job on occasion,
that HMO's have a conflict of interest in providing health care and can't be trusted,
That being a true American is not dependent on race or religion,
That meat is bad,
That affirmative action may be the only way to prevent racial relations breakdown in the face of genetic intelligence differences,
That women should screw whoever they want and use as much birth control as they want in the first 3 months,
That guns are for the state government to defend against the federal government, not for people to use for hunting,
That our moral standing in the world is just as important as our military power,
That wiretapping is BAD,
That the War on Terror is really a war of ideas with Islam, and the phrase terrorism is being used to scare us,
That we should be allowed to burn the flag because otherwise the 1st amendment means nothing,
That pornography isn't sinful,
That examined life is better than the unexamined.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Sports
I was going to write something about how professional sports is useless because of commercialism and the steroid scandal.
But instead, I'll just gloat. The Giants are going to the Super Bowl! What a game!
But instead, I'll just gloat. The Giants are going to the Super Bowl! What a game!
Saturday, January 19, 2008
The Bad guys are winning
So, the candidates of partisanship and division, Hillary and disgusting Romney, won Nevada. Not good. But then again, what the hell is this change that everyone keeps talking about? A change in partisan warfare? Not likely, though the situation will improve without Bush. There are just too many disagreements in American society today. If only Biden won.
---
I can't believe that Romney had the insanity to say that change in Washington was needed. I mean, come on! He has never criticized President Bush for anything, and yet Bush is the Washington politician most responsible for our current political messes.
From his website
"The change message, with the governor's ability to get things done, is obviously our strongest message right now..."
Washington Post 01.16.2008
All the more evidence that this campaign of change is a bunch of bs. Bill Clinton wasn't a candidate of "change" and yet, he is still one of the most popular presidents of recent history. What he did was govern from the center and avoid divisive politics.
We need someone with the pragmatism needed to govern a crazy world and divided country. Not more idealists who think that we can turn the America or the world into a utopia.
---
I can't believe that Romney had the insanity to say that change in Washington was needed. I mean, come on! He has never criticized President Bush for anything, and yet Bush is the Washington politician most responsible for our current political messes.
From his website
"The change message, with the governor's ability to get things done, is obviously our strongest message right now..."
Washington Post 01.16.2008
All the more evidence that this campaign of change is a bunch of bs. Bill Clinton wasn't a candidate of "change" and yet, he is still one of the most popular presidents of recent history. What he did was govern from the center and avoid divisive politics.
We need someone with the pragmatism needed to govern a crazy world and divided country. Not more idealists who think that we can turn the America or the world into a utopia.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Human Nature Trumps Culture (shocker!)
The claim?
In the words of Half sigma
"Humans are biologically programmed to be status whores."
Proof?
1) Stanford, California A study shows that people like wine that is perceived as more expensive despite a lower quality.
2) Bangkok, Thailand. Stickman blogs about the Thai obsession with status, often noting that people will take a trip to an expensive beach AND NOT EVEN ENJOY IT just so that they can take pictures and say they were there. Anyone remember the Japanese tourists that pile up in the buses, take pictures of famous monuments, and leave quickly? Solely for the purpose of telling others they were there.
3) Kabul, Afghanistan. A recent nytimes article details the absurd amount of money people are willing to pay for a wedding just to gain face and prestige.
Hamid, a midlevel bureaucrat in the Afghan government who supports his six-member family on a salary of $7,200 per year, said his bill was going to top $12,000. And by Afghan standards, that would be considered normal, or even a bargain....
Even the poor do not scrimp. A laborer, for instance, making about the average per capita income of $350 per year, may well spend more than $2,000 for his wedding, Afghans say.
or
Dinner included sumptuous amounts of beef, rice, vegetables and bread — much more than even the enormous crowd could possibly eat — served on big platters atop the hall’s banquet tables.
Disturbing? Or evidence that maybe there were some things that were good about Afghanistan under the Taliban (shudder).
4) Status signal in America is highly tied to the audience one is trying to impress, detailed in this new article on Slate. Good to know the Saletan brouhaha didn't totally turn them off to sensitive questions.
This makes sense. A black person in the ghetto isn't trying to get in the pants of a middle class white girl, so they don't signal to them. They instead are trying to holler at the sista down the block.
I think this pretty much sums it up:
"the term conspicuous consumption is now broadly applied to individuals and households with expendable incomes whose consumption patterns are prompted by the utility of goods to show their status rather than any intrinsic utility of such goods."
Seems totally stupid, no? But guess what. It all has it's roots in evolutionary psychology. In fact, Dawkins recently changed his mind about it, as he details in this essay
Zahavi's evolutionary theory of prestige was anticipated in the human sphere by the economist Thorstein Veblen. Anthropologists had drawn attention to 'Potlatch' ceremonies, whereby rival chieftains compete by means of conspicuous displays of ruinous generosity. You demonstrate your wealth and power by ostentatious donation or waste, culminating, in extreme cases, by setting fire to everything you possess. Veblen developed the idea in his concept of Conspicuous Consumption. Individuals consume goods not because they want them but in order to demonstrate status. Zahavi's version is evolutionary, and therefore assumed to be not consciously thought-out by its animal practitioners. But it comes to the same thing.
Zahavi originally proposed his Handicap Principle in the context of sexual advertisement by male animals to females. The long tail of a cock pheasant is a handicap. It endangers the male's own survival. Other theories of sexual selection reasoned - plausibly enough - that the long tail is favoured in spite of its being a handicap. Zahavi's maddeningly contrary suggestion was that females prefer long tailed males, not in spite of the handicap but precisely because of it. To use Zahavi's own preferred style of anthropomorphic whimsy, the male pheasant is saying to the female, "Look what a fine pheasant I must be, for I have survived in spite of lugging this incapacitating burden around behind me." For Zahavi, the handicap has to be a genuine one, authentically costly. A fake burden - the equivalent of the padded shoulder as counterfeit of physical strength - would be rumbled by the females. In Darwinian terms, natural selection would favor females who scorn padded males and choose instead males who demonstrate genuine physical strength in a costly, and therefore, unfakeable way. For Zahavi, cost is paramount. The male has to pay a genuine cost, or females would be selected to favor a rival male who does so.
Depressing? I think so. All the more evidence that our lives are ultimately an attempt to posture for social status in order to gain reproductive fitness. Will posthumanism save us from this stupid endeavor? I hope so. If Buddha wants to know the roots of human suffering, just point to the status chasing and ego glorifying pursuits that take up a majority of our time.
The next time you buy or ask for a diamond, ask yourself whether the diamond is actually worth something, or maybe the money spend on a blood diamond is better spend investing in a microfinance fund than stupid crap to show your friends.
In the words of Half sigma
"Humans are biologically programmed to be status whores."
Proof?
1) Stanford, California A study shows that people like wine that is perceived as more expensive despite a lower quality.
2) Bangkok, Thailand. Stickman blogs about the Thai obsession with status, often noting that people will take a trip to an expensive beach AND NOT EVEN ENJOY IT just so that they can take pictures and say they were there. Anyone remember the Japanese tourists that pile up in the buses, take pictures of famous monuments, and leave quickly? Solely for the purpose of telling others they were there.
3) Kabul, Afghanistan. A recent nytimes article details the absurd amount of money people are willing to pay for a wedding just to gain face and prestige.
Hamid, a midlevel bureaucrat in the Afghan government who supports his six-member family on a salary of $7,200 per year, said his bill was going to top $12,000. And by Afghan standards, that would be considered normal, or even a bargain....
Even the poor do not scrimp. A laborer, for instance, making about the average per capita income of $350 per year, may well spend more than $2,000 for his wedding, Afghans say.
or
Dinner included sumptuous amounts of beef, rice, vegetables and bread — much more than even the enormous crowd could possibly eat — served on big platters atop the hall’s banquet tables.
Disturbing? Or evidence that maybe there were some things that were good about Afghanistan under the Taliban (shudder).
4) Status signal in America is highly tied to the audience one is trying to impress, detailed in this new article on Slate. Good to know the Saletan brouhaha didn't totally turn them off to sensitive questions.
This makes sense. A black person in the ghetto isn't trying to get in the pants of a middle class white girl, so they don't signal to them. They instead are trying to holler at the sista down the block.
I think this pretty much sums it up:
"the term conspicuous consumption is now broadly applied to individuals and households with expendable incomes whose consumption patterns are prompted by the utility of goods to show their status rather than any intrinsic utility of such goods."
Seems totally stupid, no? But guess what. It all has it's roots in evolutionary psychology. In fact, Dawkins recently changed his mind about it, as he details in this essay
Zahavi's evolutionary theory of prestige was anticipated in the human sphere by the economist Thorstein Veblen. Anthropologists had drawn attention to 'Potlatch' ceremonies, whereby rival chieftains compete by means of conspicuous displays of ruinous generosity. You demonstrate your wealth and power by ostentatious donation or waste, culminating, in extreme cases, by setting fire to everything you possess. Veblen developed the idea in his concept of Conspicuous Consumption. Individuals consume goods not because they want them but in order to demonstrate status. Zahavi's version is evolutionary, and therefore assumed to be not consciously thought-out by its animal practitioners. But it comes to the same thing.
Zahavi originally proposed his Handicap Principle in the context of sexual advertisement by male animals to females. The long tail of a cock pheasant is a handicap. It endangers the male's own survival. Other theories of sexual selection reasoned - plausibly enough - that the long tail is favoured in spite of its being a handicap. Zahavi's maddeningly contrary suggestion was that females prefer long tailed males, not in spite of the handicap but precisely because of it. To use Zahavi's own preferred style of anthropomorphic whimsy, the male pheasant is saying to the female, "Look what a fine pheasant I must be, for I have survived in spite of lugging this incapacitating burden around behind me." For Zahavi, the handicap has to be a genuine one, authentically costly. A fake burden - the equivalent of the padded shoulder as counterfeit of physical strength - would be rumbled by the females. In Darwinian terms, natural selection would favor females who scorn padded males and choose instead males who demonstrate genuine physical strength in a costly, and therefore, unfakeable way. For Zahavi, cost is paramount. The male has to pay a genuine cost, or females would be selected to favor a rival male who does so.
Depressing? I think so. All the more evidence that our lives are ultimately an attempt to posture for social status in order to gain reproductive fitness. Will posthumanism save us from this stupid endeavor? I hope so. If Buddha wants to know the roots of human suffering, just point to the status chasing and ego glorifying pursuits that take up a majority of our time.
The next time you buy or ask for a diamond, ask yourself whether the diamond is actually worth something, or maybe the money spend on a blood diamond is better spend investing in a microfinance fund than stupid crap to show your friends.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
What are we doing?
The consequences when we shove our young men into the middle of a civil war between barbarian Muslims.
I <3 John McCain on many issues, but his unwavering justification of the Iraq war really riles me when I see stories like this.
Decent young American men, lives ruined, because we think we can give democracy to people who think that beheading children is a way to conduct inter tribal warfare.
I <3 John McCain on many issues, but his unwavering justification of the Iraq war really riles me when I see stories like this.
Decent young American men, lives ruined, because we think we can give democracy to people who think that beheading children is a way to conduct inter tribal warfare.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Decent People
I'm not sure what to think after the exit of Biden. We need someone to united the country. Hillary Clinton, Huckabee, Edwards, Romney, Paul, and Guiliani are incapable. We have hope in McCain and Obama
I wholeheartedly disagree with John McCain on immigration. But, I will sheepishly admit, that a year and a half ago, before I ever googled "IQ and the wealth of nations," and while I was steeped in economic theory, I wholeheartedly supported amnesty for immigrants and hated with a vengeance those who opposed it as racist and anti-American. Strange, no?
I disagree with McCain on Iraq. HOWEVER, he was one of the few who was willing to confront the reality that we needed more troops to bring stability to Iraq.
"Mark my words, we will NOT have a strong central democratic government in Iraq," the words of Joe Biden, in direct response to a support the troops speech by McCain. I disagree with McCain. However, given that when we leave Iraq, we will have genocide, I am somewhat sympathetic to his view that we should give "victory" a chance.
The debates don't often give goosebumps. However, this exchange between Romney and McCain on the issue of torture crystallizes what it means to be a decent human being.
If it's McCain vs. Obama, I think the country wins either way. If Hillary, Romney, or Huckabee wins either nomination, I think Bloomberg will start to look very attractive.
I wholeheartedly disagree with John McCain on immigration. But, I will sheepishly admit, that a year and a half ago, before I ever googled "IQ and the wealth of nations," and while I was steeped in economic theory, I wholeheartedly supported amnesty for immigrants and hated with a vengeance those who opposed it as racist and anti-American. Strange, no?
I disagree with McCain on Iraq. HOWEVER, he was one of the few who was willing to confront the reality that we needed more troops to bring stability to Iraq.
"Mark my words, we will NOT have a strong central democratic government in Iraq," the words of Joe Biden, in direct response to a support the troops speech by McCain. I disagree with McCain. However, given that when we leave Iraq, we will have genocide, I am somewhat sympathetic to his view that we should give "victory" a chance.
The debates don't often give goosebumps. However, this exchange between Romney and McCain on the issue of torture crystallizes what it means to be a decent human being.
If it's McCain vs. Obama, I think the country wins either way. If Hillary, Romney, or Huckabee wins either nomination, I think Bloomberg will start to look very attractive.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Disheartened by Human Nature
After watching the movie provoked , a mediocre film but still troubling.
Domestic violence is a complex issue. But, I think that while feminists and society as a whole legitimately criticize men who beat their wives, there are some disturbing questions on the side.
Domestic violence is a complex issue. But, I think that while feminists and society as a whole legitimately criticize men who beat their wives, there are some disturbing questions on the side.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Ouch
Having come down from the high of Barack Obama's speech and allowing reality to kick in, the loss of Joe Biden is beginning to feel painful.
If a Democrat gets elected hopefully Biden will be more influential and will be able to guide the next president on foreign policy issues.
If a Democrat gets elected hopefully Biden will be more influential and will be able to guide the next president on foreign policy issues.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Caucus for Joe Biden
Tomorrow is the big day in Iowa. Though it won't determine who will be president, it has the potential to knock out some solid second tier candidates. One of them is Joe Biden.
I believe Joe Biden is the most qualified candidate to be President. I will tell you why.
In a President, there are several qualities that are going to be vitally important:
1) Restoring America's place in the world.
-No one has more foreign policy experience than Joe Biden, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Pakistan's President called Biden after declaring a State of Emergency. Biden spoke to Bhutto a few days before her assassination.
-Joe Biden is the ONLY candidate with a plan to remove our troops from Iraq AND prevent genocide and chaos. Even though he voted for the war, before the Invasion he attempted to add a clause that insisted on exhausting all diplomatic efforts before committing troops.
-Joe Biden has voted against War with Iran
-Joe Biden has opposed torture and will commit to the restoration of American moral leadership.
-Joe Biden is the only candidate willing to put a halt to genocide in Darfur.
2) Beating the Republicans
-The current crop of Republican candidates is shameful. Beyond his speech on faith, Mitt Romney has shown absolutely no moral leadership, from desiring to double Guantanamo, to changing his positions to fit the current political winds. John McCain, though a fundamentally decent human being, is approaching senility and his desire to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and indefinitely continue the war in Iraq makes him a problematic candidate.
Mike Huckabee is an absolute buffoon who has no idea about what is going on in the world. Ron Paul is an ideologue who thinks that shrinking the size of the government is the only way to solve our problems (and he also opposed the American Civil War). And finally, Guiliani has tremendous ethical conflicts of interests, as well as dictatorial tendencies that have been exacerbated by his shameful exploitation of 9/11 for political gain.
I would be very distressed to have any of these candidates as my president.
-But the Democrats are also weak. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all have large groups of people who hate them. Considering that John Kerry was brought down by bogus swift boat advertisements, does anyone think that the Republican attack machine will have problems with taking down a woman, or a black man with middle name "Hussein," or a trial lawyer trying to start class warfare? Though none of these candidates being elected will make me question my loyalty to the US, they will not be successful in either getting elected, or uniting the country to deal with our pressing concerns.
3) Uniting the country
Therefore, because each of the Republican and Democratic candidates will inspire hatred in many others, we need a candidate who speaks to reason and can unite the country. If Joe Biden ran against Republicans, IT WOULD BE NO CONTEST.
Joe Biden has gained bipartisan support for a wide variety of initiatives, unlike any of the other senators who have done nothing in office.
4) Bring sensibility to issues
-He has respected a woman's right to choose by supporting Roe v. Wade, but has also voted for laws preventing partial birth abortions. He supports stem cell research and did not vote for a bill banning cloning.
-On crime, Biden authored the Violence against women act and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
-Biden opposed drilling in the Artic that would destroy wildlife. He supports renewable energies and investment in technology. He supports increasing fuel economy requirements.
-He supports building a wall around the border and immigration reform.
-While he did vote for the Patriot Act, he voted against wiretapping and for preserving habeus corpus for foreign suspects.
-He supports lowering health care costs to make American businesses more competitive.
-He does not support funding for abstinence-only education programs abroad for HIV prevention.
I really think it is as simple as Biden. Sure, I don't agree with him on everything. But the thing is, he is reasonable. He is not a leader that makes decisions from the gut. While he may not inspire us like Obama, make us scared/protected like Guiliani, have the heroics of McCain, the perfectly crafted image of Hillary or Romney, the faith of Huckabee, or the personability and looks of Edwards, or the fierce freedom philosophy of Paul, he is the logical and solid choice for president.
It really is simple. Don't jut vote for someone because they are popular and can win. Vote for who you trust to be President.
Look here , here or here for examples of what it would be like to actually be proud of the person who leads your country.
What happened when we shunned the reasonable candidate (Gore) for the feel good president? We ended with Iraq, Katrina, economic slowdown, eroding competitiveness, hatred of America, ballooning health care costs.
Vote for a President who will bring reason to the most serious job in the world.
If you go with Hillary because she's electable, and the Republican machine takes her down, and then a terrible Republican gets elected, we will ask ourselves:
Why didn't we just go with Biden?
I believe Joe Biden is the most qualified candidate to be President. I will tell you why.
In a President, there are several qualities that are going to be vitally important:
1) Restoring America's place in the world.
-No one has more foreign policy experience than Joe Biden, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Pakistan's President called Biden after declaring a State of Emergency. Biden spoke to Bhutto a few days before her assassination.
-Joe Biden is the ONLY candidate with a plan to remove our troops from Iraq AND prevent genocide and chaos. Even though he voted for the war, before the Invasion he attempted to add a clause that insisted on exhausting all diplomatic efforts before committing troops.
-Joe Biden has voted against War with Iran
-Joe Biden has opposed torture and will commit to the restoration of American moral leadership.
-Joe Biden is the only candidate willing to put a halt to genocide in Darfur.
2) Beating the Republicans
-The current crop of Republican candidates is shameful. Beyond his speech on faith, Mitt Romney has shown absolutely no moral leadership, from desiring to double Guantanamo, to changing his positions to fit the current political winds. John McCain, though a fundamentally decent human being, is approaching senility and his desire to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and indefinitely continue the war in Iraq makes him a problematic candidate.
Mike Huckabee is an absolute buffoon who has no idea about what is going on in the world. Ron Paul is an ideologue who thinks that shrinking the size of the government is the only way to solve our problems (and he also opposed the American Civil War). And finally, Guiliani has tremendous ethical conflicts of interests, as well as dictatorial tendencies that have been exacerbated by his shameful exploitation of 9/11 for political gain.
I would be very distressed to have any of these candidates as my president.
-But the Democrats are also weak. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all have large groups of people who hate them. Considering that John Kerry was brought down by bogus swift boat advertisements, does anyone think that the Republican attack machine will have problems with taking down a woman, or a black man with middle name "Hussein," or a trial lawyer trying to start class warfare? Though none of these candidates being elected will make me question my loyalty to the US, they will not be successful in either getting elected, or uniting the country to deal with our pressing concerns.
3) Uniting the country
Therefore, because each of the Republican and Democratic candidates will inspire hatred in many others, we need a candidate who speaks to reason and can unite the country. If Joe Biden ran against Republicans, IT WOULD BE NO CONTEST.
Joe Biden has gained bipartisan support for a wide variety of initiatives, unlike any of the other senators who have done nothing in office.
4) Bring sensibility to issues
-He has respected a woman's right to choose by supporting Roe v. Wade, but has also voted for laws preventing partial birth abortions. He supports stem cell research and did not vote for a bill banning cloning.
-On crime, Biden authored the Violence against women act and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
-Biden opposed drilling in the Artic that would destroy wildlife. He supports renewable energies and investment in technology. He supports increasing fuel economy requirements.
-He supports building a wall around the border and immigration reform.
-While he did vote for the Patriot Act, he voted against wiretapping and for preserving habeus corpus for foreign suspects.
-He supports lowering health care costs to make American businesses more competitive.
-He does not support funding for abstinence-only education programs abroad for HIV prevention.
I really think it is as simple as Biden. Sure, I don't agree with him on everything. But the thing is, he is reasonable. He is not a leader that makes decisions from the gut. While he may not inspire us like Obama, make us scared/protected like Guiliani, have the heroics of McCain, the perfectly crafted image of Hillary or Romney, the faith of Huckabee, or the personability and looks of Edwards, or the fierce freedom philosophy of Paul, he is the logical and solid choice for president.
It really is simple. Don't jut vote for someone because they are popular and can win. Vote for who you trust to be President.
Look here , here or here for examples of what it would be like to actually be proud of the person who leads your country.
What happened when we shunned the reasonable candidate (Gore) for the feel good president? We ended with Iraq, Katrina, economic slowdown, eroding competitiveness, hatred of America, ballooning health care costs.
Vote for a President who will bring reason to the most serious job in the world.
If you go with Hillary because she's electable, and the Republican machine takes her down, and then a terrible Republican gets elected, we will ask ourselves:
Why didn't we just go with Biden?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)