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

Category: Miscellaney Page 13 of 14

Deserve: the deadliest word

I hate the word “deserve” because lord save us all from what we “deserve”, but lately I find it hard to remember that one good person is worth saving, or that most people are just weak, not evil.  The world will burn, in war, and famine, and revolution, and climate change and it will burn because we are so contemptible we refuse to do anything to stop it from burning. And maybe that we now includes me, but I’m so very tired of dealing with stupid, cruel, selfish people.  Heck, forget selfish, people who won’t even look out after their own self-interest, or even understand what it is.

I fear I’ve come full circle.  As a teenager, subject to constant cruelty, I hated humanity.  Contemptible.  The human love of cruelty was clear to me, the way we encourage it, the way we nurture it, the way we inculate it.  The way group dynamics require scapegraces and outsiders, the way most people, to feel good about themselves, like to watch others squirm, how they enjoy tormenting the weak, how they secure their own position in whatever little pack they belong to by showing that someone is below them.  They make those people into something less than human, or worse, the truly evil know they’re human and derive pleasure from the ability to inflict and relieve suffering as they choose.

As I grew older, I learned how to defend myself, learned how to make those who would hurt me, hurt instead, so they would find their prey elsewhere, would prove their place in the hierarchy by humiliating someone else.  And I learned that some people are good, that some people will do the right thing even when there’s nothing in it for them.  I learned, also, that most people are of weak character.  In their weakness they will do what they think the group approves of. A few good leaders I saw made of those around them good people, by expecting nothing less.  Oh, the pettiness never goes away, but the deeper cruelty was not tolerated, and it was not tolerated by even the lower ranking members of the packs, for so they had been trained, so it was expected, and they knew that disapproval would come from the pack, and the Alpha, for cruelty, not kindness.

But we have selected, to rule our societies, sociopaths at best and psychopaths at worse.  They have contempt for those they rule, do not see them as even truly human, and enjoy hurting them.  They feel tough when they make the hard decisions, which are somehow always hard for others, but never for themselves.  They encourage cruelty in society, from the ground up, and routinely subject the population to humiliating surveillance, force them to abase themselves to the least appearance of authority, whether legitimately used or not, and condone murder and torture and routine humiliation.  They don’t do these things to themselves, of course, the rich, for example, don’t get groped in airports, but they routinely do it to those below them.

And in so doing they teach those below them, to do it to those below them, and below them, and below them, and so on.  The sickness comes from the top, a rotten poison which has altered the character of nations.  But it came from the bottom, first.  It came from a population who became lazy and complacent and thought they had rights they didn’t have to guard like a dog with a bone; who thought they could just live their lives and leave politics to other people except for pulling a lever or marking a ballot every four years.  It came from people who felt “I’ve got mine, who cares what happens to anyone I don’t know?”   Unable to see themselves in others for longer than the gossamer blink of an eye, they were also unable to understand that what was done to others would also be done to them.

We have become contemptible.  Our leaders, perhaps, are most contemptible of all, but we continue to consent. Oh perhaps polls might say we’re not happy, but who cares what polls say?  We do nothing, we let our leaders do as they will, and we take on their mores, becoming cruel and debased and uncaring of what happens to our fellows, not even the care of enlightened self interest, the clear understanding that what is done unfairly, cruely, to someone else, could, probably will, one day be done to us.  We pretend to care most about our children, making such a fetish of it that allowing children to roam unattended is virtually treated as a crime, yet we are creating a world in which they will suffer, unimaginably, a world in which hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of our grandchildren will die.

Lord save us from what we deserve, because what we deserve is what’s going to happen: war and revolution, famine and drought, climate change on a scale we truly don’t understand.

Moral Monster Test

If you support this, you are one:

Members of Orlando Food Not Bombs were arrested Wednesday when police said they violated a city ordinance by feeding the homeless in Lake Eola Park.

Jessica Cross, 24, Benjamin Markeson, 49, and Jonathan “Keith” McHenry, 54, were arrested at 6:10 p.m. on a charge of violating the ordinance restricting group feedings in public parks. McHenry is a co-founder of the international Food Not Bombs movement, which began in the early 1980s.

The group lost a court battle in April, clearing the way for the city to enforce the ordinance. It requires groups to obtain a permit and limits each group to two permits per year for each park within a 2-mile radius of City Hall.

Arrest papers state that Cross, Markeson and McHenry helped feed 40 people Wednesday night. The ordinance applies to feedings of more than 25 people.

“They intentionally violated the statute,” said Lt. Barbara Jones, an Orlando police spokeswoman.

Just doing their job doesn’t cut it for the police, prosecutors or Lt.  Jones, the Orlanda police spokesperson, either.  But hey, this is a world where “first responders” do nothing while a man drowns, citing “procedures”.  There isn’t anything most Americans won’t do, or not do, if it’s their job.  I mean, it’s nothing personal man, it’s just a job.

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.

Page 13 of 14

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén