The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Miscellaney Page 13 of 14

Stop treating monsters as reasonable people

Over the last few years, and in particular in the last couple, I’ve noticed something about myself: I’ve become a lot more rude in my political dealings, including with many people I used to consider allies.  At first this worried me a bit, because I couldn’t quite pin down why, beyond the fact that I was angry.

Now I’m not someone who believes anger is always a bad thing.  I think certain things should make you angry, and if they don’t, something’s wrong with you.  When people are dying, being raped, being tortured, being denied basic rights, being beaten and so on, you should get angry.  You should use that anger as a weapon and as fuel for the fight.

Still, anger isn’t a strategy, or even a tactic, and one has to be careful, because anger can blind you and turn you against those who should be your allies.

And that’s the crux.  Allies.

What I’ve come to realize lately is that I’m not on the same side as a lot of people.  If you’re for the Afghan war, aka. for eternal war, I’m not on your side.  If you believe in indefinite detention or the President’s right to assassinate whoever he wants, I’m not on your side.  If you believe that Wikileaks is evil and that citizens should be kept in the dark as to what their governments are doing, then I’m not on your side.

Through the Bush years opposition to Bush made a lot of people seem like friends, who weren’t.  Sure, we all hated Bush (yes, hated.  I hate people who torture and engage in aggressive war, and I think that’s the appropriate response), but that hatred, that opposition, concealed the fact that a lot of people didn’t really object to what Bush was doing, they just objected to the fact that it was being done by a Republican, or that it was being done incompetently.  They would have been ok with the same policies if they’d worked out, as with all the “liberals” and “progressives” who were pro-Iraq war until it turned into a clusterfuck.

The Wikileas imbroglio was a real turning point for me.  At least half the “progressives” I know revealed themselves as, simply, supporters of authoritarianism; revealed themselves as mushrooms who wanted daddy to keep them in the dark and feed them shit.  Revealed themselves as fools who didn’t either understand or, worse, believe that government exists to serve its citizens, who have a right to know what it’s doing in their name.

But while the watershed, it was merely the latest in a string of horrible behavior from the “left”.  Whether it was teacher’s unions stealing food stamp money to pay for their raises, unions selling out their own members to support Barack Obama’s health care bill, which was bad for most union members or whether it was the progressive caucus promising to vote against any HCR bill without the public option, then folding like wet cardboard, it was clear that there was no spine and no solidarity on the left.  Every little interest group was always willing to sell out everyone else, sometimes for their own interests, but often not even for that: the leadership of organizations was so corrupt that they would sell out their own members interests so they could feel like members of the DC Village.

I have no time for these people.  I have no politeness or kindness for them.  They are traitors and in many cases cowards, and their actions or lack of actions are, objectively, killing or impoverishing people, both in America or abroad.

So screw politeness, and screw reasonableness.  Reasonableness in the current political environment means “willing to sell out the people whose interests she or he is supposed to care about.”

So count me out.  I’m not interested in being reasonable, if reasonable means “a spineless sell out”.  I’m not interested in being pragmatic, if pragmatic means “understands that nothing can actually be done to fix any problem”, and I’m not interested in being polite to people who make their living by destroying lives or apologizing for those who destroy lives.

America is going down, and the world is spiraling into an age of war because everyone wants to be “reasonable” rather than do the right thing for their own people.  Everyone who matters wants to pander to the rich, rather than care for the masses.  And as for the masses, they have treated politics as a spectator sport, allowed themselves to be lied to and made fools of, and have and will continue to reap the bitter harvest.

You not only have only the rights you are willing to fight for, you have only the economic livelihood you are willing to fight for.  Americans, being unwilling to fight for either, will soon have neither.

And I have nothing but contempt for those who have led them to this impasse, and with them, much of the world.

Dear Software Writers

Please don’t set your program to auto-update my drivers without telling me.  Because, no, your newer drivers are not always better, in fact they often break something, which is why I NEVER auto-update drivers (or much of anything else).

Thanks for wasting a good six hours of my life fixing your screwed up driver problem.

Signed,

a massively frustrated customer.

Ideologies have overlap

Ideologies neither form a spectrum, nor a grid, nor even a circle.  Instead the reality is more complicated, with ideologies agreeing on different issues, often for different reasons in some very odd ways.

Progressivism (as I understand it, I would not call myself a progressive) is fundamentally and first about domestic issues.  If someone is willing to sacrifice liberty and economic progress for war then they aren’t a progressive.  Likewise, Ron Paul, for example is not a progressive because he disagrees on key domestic issues (even as he agrees on other domestic issues and many issues surrounding war.)

The paleocon right, the libertarian right and the “hard” (what passes for hard in America) left agree substantially on some specific foreign policy issues (the end of empire).  They also agree on many economic issues and liberty issues.  They disagree on redistributionism and they disagree on positive liberty (making sure that people actually have an even break), as opposed to negative liberty (making sure the government isn’t actively stopping them from having an even break).

Agreement on some issues doesn’t mean libertarianism, progressivism and paleconsevervatism are the same thing, it just means their ideologies agree at various points.

It is fairly commonplace to note that the liberal left lost the working class to social issues when they stopped properly protecting them on economic issues and when the corporate right threw aside actual fiscal conservatism (we’ll promise them services and give them tax cuts!)  Again, that doesn’t mean that segment of the population doesn’t agree with the left on a large number of issues, the question is what they prioritize.  They regularly say they want liberal policies then vote against them.  Priorities, priorities (and they will get what they’re asking for, I’m afraid.)

“Progressives” who support the current wars have decided to sacrifice domestic prosperity and progress for war.  That’s the calculation they’ve made, whether they’re willing to admit it or not.  And yes, I can say that means they aren’t progressive.  I mean, Barack Obama keeps saying he’s a progressive and if you believe that….  Words don’t just mean whatever people want them to mean, in that case I could say I’m a Neocon, because neoconservatism means believing in prosperity and freedom, right?

Bullshit.

Ron Paul’s economic policies, if actually followed, would cause economic armageddon.  Don’t get me wrong, I like him, but he’s racist and his policies are largely moronic.  He may not work for the rich, but he’s like a doctor saying “well yes, the patient is anemic, so let’s bleed him!”

A lot of people are focusing lately on another pair of ideologies: populism vs. aristocracy/oligarchy.  We don’t use the word aristocracy any more, but that’s what the US has and is developing even further.

Americans and most others don’t recognize the ideology of aristocracy any more, because after WWII it pretty much died out in its classical form, but the rent-seekers are pure aristocrats/oligarchs who want to create an economy which is entirely risk free for them and in which every relationship is reduced to revenue streams. (What used to be called “income”).

But to say that’s the “real” fight is to miss the point, because what the solution is to aristocracy matters.  “No bailouts” + “drown the government in a bathtub”, ie. Tea Partyism, leads absolutely nowhere good.  Right wing solutions, basically, don’t work.  The attempt to do them in an even “purer” form won’t work this time either, should it occur.  So it’s not enough to say “populism first” and ignore the content of the solutions proposed by various populists.  The varieties of right wing and left wing populism are not equal and which one you get matters a lot.

Ian on Blog Talk Radio

If you missed the live session last night, you can listen to the interview here. Discussed Obama and policy, unregulated oligopolies and their political and economic effect, and even, at the end, made the case for Obama as I think he’d make it for himself if he were brutally frank.

Moronic Facebook Security

So, I’m in Vegas,and being the creature of the internet I am, I get the laptop hooked up.  Someone has left me a message on Facebook.  I go to log in.  Facebook notices I’m not logging in from my home computer and decides to play security games with me–which apparently means showing me pictures tagged with “friends”.

Do these idiots not understand that many Facebook friends aren’t real life friends?  That they aren’t people I’ve met?  That I don’t know what they look like?  Do they not understand that this is true of much of their customer base?  (Heck, one picture was an abstract picture with no people in it at all, I’m supposed to guess who got tagged in it?)

What happened to asking me questions about, oh, myself?

Morons.

(Staying at the Encore in Vegas.  So far, it is very nice.)

An Observation On Haiti

The longer “security” is used as a reason not to distribute food, water and medical supplies the more angry and desperate Haitians will become, and thus the worse the security situation will be.  Troops which are not actually providing security for actual distribution of supplies, by taking up airlift capacity which could be used for relief, make the security situation worse rather than better.

Posting at Open Left From Wednesday July 15th to July 29th

Just as it says.  Pop on over, I should have up 2 posts a day (or so), on weekdays, through that period.  Posts will show here, but not until they’ve been up at Open Left for a while first.  So head over, and (hopefully) enjoy—or hate, just don’t be indifferent 😉

Star Trek

Saw the movie today.  Every friend whose seen it has liked it, so my expectation were high, but the movie met them.  In fact, I’d go so far as to say it may be the best Star Trek movie.  I was never a Star Trek geek, and I never liked any of the series after the original, so take it for what it’s worth.

What was striking about the movie, to me, is that it was primarily about the relationship between Spock and Kirk.  Now, of course, that was the central relationship in the original series, but what I mean is the movie was about the relationship, not about saving the world.  Oh sure, Spock and Kirk have to save the world (and, er, not a spoiler) and of course they do, but the core of the move is the emotional relationship between the two men, and how they have to learn to both like and respect each other.  In particular, Spock has to learn his own weaknesses (something which, I think, needs to be done for Kirk in a sequel).

(Actual spoilers below)

Page 13 of 14

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén