I upgraded to Wordpress 2.0 tonight
Looks like they implemented some neat improvements on the front and back end of the app. Let me know if it's broken / looks alright to me, though.
On Paranoia and the Fucked Up Novel
Just last night I finished the 800 page Illuminatus! Trilogy, and wow, what a ride. Imagine what Atlas Shrugged would have read like if Hunter S. Thompson had written it, and you have a pretty good idea of how this book is. I can't even get into what it's about - not because it's taboo, but because the book is purposefully schizophrenic and difficult to follow.
Imagine a book where the narrators jump around with no warning whatsoever to the reader - you simply "figure it out" as you go along. Plot lines are built up out of sequence around clues that are constantly discovered, assembled into conspiracies, and then thrown out. Self-depreciating humor is interspersed throughout the tome challenging the idea that the book is even worthwhile. It's like Bertold Brecht telling a Tom Clancy storyline, but with porn and drugs thrown in.
Reading the book confirmed my long move out of minarchist territory and into the abyss of anarchism. To get an idea of the concepts that clinched it for me, check out this page (Hagbard Celine is the chief protagonist, a libertine John Galt if you will). It also contains an extremely interesting graph:
On Paranoia and the Police State
Ron Paul on the coming police state:
Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don't believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority- all in the name of security.
Those who believe a police state can't happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.
New Years Resolutions (hold me to them)
- Chill the fuck out
- Get in shape: either swim (preferred), lift weights, run, walk, do pushups, whatever - just do something to burn off some fat. Fer Christ's sakes.
- Save money towards a down payment on a house (looks like that bubble will be burstin' soon, and I wanna be ready)
- Pay off debt - this goes hand in hand with savings. Broader goal: financial security
- Perform music more often - either with a band or recording in the studio
- Read about mutualism, anarchism, and left-libetarianism - there's a lot of great thinking out there and I'm tired of sitting on the sidelines. More institutional analysis and coincidence theorizing!
- Get my Java or .NET certification
There - your goddamn obligatory post that takes into account the time of the year. Happy?!?! :)
P.S. - Since 2005 is my first full year of blogging, at some point I'd like to engage in the fatal conceit of highlighting what I consider to be my best writing. If you remember anything you read that you liked, let me know. If you remember anything you read that you thought was full of crap, chances are you already let me know, but do so if you haven't yet.
A Piece of the Action
David Boaz of the Cato Institute gives a heads up on a stock tip for the leading growth market:
Some say high tech is coming back, or health care is the new growth area. But look at the growth in government.
...
Every business and interest group in society has an office in Washington devoted to getting some of that $2.5 trillion federal budget for itself-senior citizens, farmers, veterans, teachers, social workers, oil companies, bee keepers, labor unions, you name it. Walk down K Street, the heart of Washington's lobbying industry, and look at the directory in any office building. They're all full of lobbyists and associations that are in Washington for one reason: because that's where the money is.
...
A venture capitalist named Kenneth P. Ducey Jr. is trying to buy up some of those 2,000 lobbying firms and take them public. That means you could buy stock in a lobbying firm. And the next time you pick up the paper and read about congressmen being flown to Hawaii or Scotland, or free liquor at Capitol Hill receptions, you can know that your investment is hard at work creating a new tariff or entitlement or tax or subsidy for some special interest.
Ah, democracy at its best, huh?
The cycle continues...
Anybody can justify policies to themselves if their priorities are allocated in a certain manner. One of the problems with politics - as practiced by the people, not the elite - is that we're so sidetracked by the latest controversy or legal parsing or grand dichotomy that we never question why we think what we think. And because we never get to realize our deepest inner truths, we can't communicate them in terms that others can understand in any profound manner. At some level, we must understand that even if we were to get our political way, the world would not be fixed.
I've reached that moment in the cycle where I realize that all my harping on politics is futile. I can't change anything because I can't make people be more thoughtful - at least not by talking about law, current events, or even philosophy. All my positions on these things presuppose a deeper understanding, an agreement I've reached with myself in order to make sense of the world. Moreover, this understanding is constantly changing, so that even if I had the ability to adequately communicate what I perceive as truth, that understanding would become obsolete. And even if I articulate this weltanschauung, I don't recognize the truths that others articulate. Something is always lost, and eventually all of us lose.
We're all desperately trying to get others to buy into our beliefs, hoping that it will make them come true for us. But that's not truth - that's competition. Competition has it's place, but what is more powerful is when people bring what they really believe to the table, and not their best argument for what they believe. You have to put your cards on the table, face up, and let the chips fall where they may. And that's the opposite of politics.
Where have I heard of this NSA before?
Oh, yeah, didn't it have something to do with John Bolton receiving NSA intercepts of Americans' conversations? From Larry Johnson (via the UnCapitalist Journal):
We still don't know who he was looking at and what information was contained in those intercepts. More importantly, were they legally obtained? In light of the latest revelation, we have another possible explanation why the Bush Administration fought so strenuously to keep those intercepts secret and out of the hearing. Snooping without judicial review is wrong and must be punished.
It seems like if Bolton had nothing to hide, he shouldn't have needed to worry about Congress seeing the intercepts. After all, that's the argument conservatives routinely use to justify these spy operations. Isn't it wonderful how the only way to fight the terrorists always results in Bush getting more and more power?
So far, the only defense I've heard from my conservative friends is that (1) the law can be twisted to make what Bush did legal, and (2) we must reserve judgment till more facts surface. Both of these arguments are unacceptable: the law clearly states that what Bush did was illegal (even IF Congress authorized the spying, which it neither did nor has the power to do) and is there a reason you can possibly think of that Bush should be allowed to do something illegal? Bush has already admitted that what we think happened, happened - all the necessary facts are there. There's no question of fact - it's a question now of lawyers' interpretations. And if that's the best argument they can drum up, then I have no choice but to consider them patently dishonest. The time has come for conservatives to remember that their principles are more important than their leaders. Because if the Republican citizens let this stand and defend it, I can no longer consider merely their leaders the problem.
Hung by his own words
Via Antiwar.com's Carol Watson, Bush admits that he knows he the law on wiretaps:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
That was in 2004. He knew the law, and according to his own understanding of the law which he explained so graciously, he broke it.
He's a plain spoken fella!
The beginning of the end?
Via Brad Spangler, President Bush may have made history last night when he admitted to authorizing the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, according to the Washington Monthly:
This is against the law. I have put references to the relevant statute below the fold; the brief version is: the law forbids warrantless surveillance of US citizens, and it provides procedures to be followed in emergencies that do not leave enough time for federal agents to get a warrant. If the NY Times report is correct, the government did not follow these procedures. It therefore acted illegally.
Bush's order is arguably unconstitutional as well: it seems to violate the fourth amendment, and it certainly violates the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
I am normally extremely wary of talking about impeachment. I think that impeachment is a trauma for the country, and that it should only be considered in extreme cases. Moreover, I think that the fact that Clinton was impeached raises the bar as far as impeaching Bush: two traumas in a row is really not good for the country, and even though my reluctance to go through a second impeachment benefits the very Republicans who needlessly inflicted the first on us, I don't care. It's bad for the country, and that matters most.
The other libertarian meat
Another liberal discovers her libertarian allies (pay attention Moonbatty). Over at Battlepanda there's a great comment thread where some of the stars of the left libertarian movement speak out about how, after all, there's more that unites us than divides us in the broader pro-freedom, pro-human movement. What spurred me out of my blogging slump to post was this comment by Brad Spangler:
...When a so-called "libertarian" fails to apply honest market analysis that might point a blaming finger at powerful established interests and instead starts saying things like: "Of course, markets can't do everything. States have a role." ...that's when they're acting on something *other* than whatever degree of libertarianism might be attributed to them.
I see moral cowardice as being a large part of the problem. When reading someone who claims to be a libertarian, ask yourself if that person sees themself as a policy wonk, or as a revolutionary.
Hell fucking yeah. This movement to advance the human cause against organized privilege isn't about the left or the right, and it doesn't fit in the preconceived, cozy categories devised by the status quo. That's why I feel energized spiritually (and humbled to the point of experiencing a crippling case of "blogger's block") to read blogs like Spangler's, Kevin Carson's, and others in the Libertarian Left Webring. It brings my deepest beliefs into alignment with clear thinking, and that's a sign that you've stumbled upon something good. We're overdue for a revolution, anyway. :)
Corporate welfare dwarfs profits
Via Brad Spangler, here's an article about the wonders of the "free market" and "globalization":
In his book Perverse Subsidies, published in 2001, Professor Norman Myers estimates that when you add the direct payments US corporations receive to the wider costs they oblige society to carry, you come up with a figure of $2.6 trillion, or roughly five times as much as the profits they make.
This goes beyond standard right wing tsk-ing of corporate welfare into straight up national socialism. Yet another reason why the rhetoric from the Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same statist, corporatist coin.
I would love to hear a standard Republican refutation of this article - one that doesn't lecture me on their principles but actually demonstrates them in action.
Mega-hat tip to Brad Spangler, whose blog is pure inspiration.
Libertarian podcast plugs
I've been enjoying the Mises Institute podcasts, in particular one by Hans-Hermann Hoppe titled The Economic Doctrine of the Nazis. Very interesting comparison of Hitler's philosophy towards economics and his opinions of his contemporaries.
Also, a great show is the Weekend Interview Show with Scott Horton. Laid back interviews, lots of humor, and always antiwar and antistate.
OneFeed goes beta
Check out my friend Matt's great new AJAX feed reader, OneFeed. I find myself using it almost exclusively now to keep up on blogs and certain news. Matt's put a lot of work into it - keep up to date on his efforts on the OneFeed blog.
Here's a screenshot:
Heh, notice I'm using Flock - I'm starting to play with it, though I'm not convinced yet.
UPDATE: OneFeed is getting some press in the blogosphere! Congratulations - it's well deserved.
P.S. I designed the logo. :)
Understanding the Neoconservative Gestalt - Forward
In a much earlier article I wrote about the motivating ideas and spirit of those with whom I disagree. I have often argued that it is not enough to politically or militarily defeat those with whom we disagree - we must understand what motivates them instead of simply writing them off as evil. It's too easy to blame errors in thinking, planning, or facts on "da debil" of the Waterboy.
Morality does have a role to play - but it is much more effective in helping us guide our own actions rather than others'. The reason is that context is important - in other words, understanding the full scope of human behavior and beliefs is essential to predicting human actions and organizing human efforts. As hard as it is to be honest with yourself about your own morality and motivations, it's infinitely harder to understand those of another. It's just very hard to understand others often - that's the human condition. Moral judgments on others often fail to be as comprehensive in understanding the situation as is necessary for practical politics. Without understanding the "evil", how are we to ever prevent it?
I am certainly a proponent of an objective system of morality - I believe that what is immoral for you is immoral for me and is immoral for the state. It's the crux of my dispute with the authority of governments. However, that is not to say that every situation can be easily and summarily boiled down to a convenient "good vs. evil" scenario. In fact, it is precisely for the same reason that morality is universal that it is so hard to apply to the real world activities of others - complexity and universality can only be reconciled when the complex system can be broken down into a set of principles. And sometimes I doubt that's even possible or, in any case, likely. Actions speak louder than words, true - but they aren't always as illustrative of human mental processes as good decision-making and judgment require.
MacStansbury.org: On faking it
Mac, my old bud from Right Thinking Girl, has an amusing post on bloggers who fake it.
Heh. Take mind, remove from gutter.
