Rant - 2011/03/26

providing safe distribution of power —as in electricity— is not a significant problem. getting past obstruction is the significant problem. there are sources of energy that are not openly discussed and there is no logical reason why they are not being discussed.

there are sources of energy that have proven themselves time and again as inherently unsafe. that means that without active, unceasing preventive measures being jostled in place the energy system would break apart and cause widespread and relentless harm to people and the ecosystem.

that being said, there are also sources of harnessing energy that inherently are benign in the effects they pose to their surroundings, requiring no external effort to make them safe.

given those current day options why would anyone choose the prior? those who obstruct the safe and benign sources of power should be discredited and their input should be soundly rejected until irrefutable evidence is presented.

Fragile Free Market Fundies

Apparently the free enterprise economic system is infinitely fragile. have you noticed how Libertarians —or the free market fundamentalists— always have some enormous setback to their perfect world? they always decry that: if only there were no taxes, if only there were no regulations, if only there were no free roads, if only there were no social security, medicare, OSHA laws, national military, ... they would have a perfect world. not even one iota of regulation can be applied without the whole system collapsing. It is an all in gamble that the 'free market' will work and if even one miscalculation is made the whole system falls into climactic disarray. into the free market fundie nightmarish regulatory tyranny. its all bollocks, in all sense of reality the moment that land ownership began the true free market ended.

fundies have such a laundry list of: fractional reserve currency, regulations and programs to cut or eliminate. anecdotes are abundant that illustrate the attempt at regulation that fundies attest do not work yet wildly participate in hindering. they ask us to believe and participate in their fantasy and actively try to bring the roof down on all our heads to prove regulation does not work. we can accurately say the new deal regulations survived 60 years of constant attack and has held firm until now. we can also say that free markets as libertarians would have it cannot suffer even a slight breeze of regulatory influence. yet nations will never stop attacking each other. they will make attempts both physically or economically. can the free market survive the tariff or subsidy of a single nation? in their mind, No. yet fundies continue the quest for a magical world without government.

I recommend an exploratory poll of libertarians. if only to get a sense of exactly the tolerances, imagined and proposed by fundies, that the human world can bear in the form of: military, taxes, subsidies, tariffs, etc. only through that can we engage their ideas with a sense of how much they will allow the weak people to suffer and how absurd their proposals can get. hell we might even be able to implement some of their less cruel ideas if they prove beneficial.

but one of the biggest mysteries is the fundies' view of a perfect world. there isnt much more than a novel by Ayn Rand to hint at the kind of world they wish for. the character, John Galt, did not live in their perfect world. he lived in his own nightmarish struggle against his regulatory dictators. but I am ill fit to attempt the description as many of the ideas are in such discord to what I think of in quality of life. freedom. absolute freedom is the very definition of anarchy. in my imagination, a life of total anarchy splits the difference between harmony with earth and deep deep terror of crime, exploitation and daily suffering. I am intrigued by other ideas of living but I prefer my own unless someone comes up with a convincing idea. a large part of the New Deal is still with us and survived vicious attacks by the libertarian and authoritarian-right wingnuts. it built the greatest middle-class that is only now being dissolved in corporate feudalism. this dissolution is the result of endless attacks against progressive economics. just think of it. the stability of progressive economics have survived thus far and libertarian economics has yet to ever be tried at all due to its infinite fragility against any pressure. I dont want to trade a robust middle-class engine for a corporate feudal engine.

2011/03/09 - Rant

Greed is good

is it? good for who? everyone? really? what if everyone suddenly were wealthy? who would work? who would just live off the wealth? it is obvious the economy as it is would just stop if that were the situation. so it prompts me to ask: why is the nation's economy and incentive program geared toward the wealthy rather than the working class? the nation should have a disincentive to hoard wealth and should give true and direct incentive to live the other way. greed is not that great.

2011/03/08 - Rant

if youre not open minded stop reading NOW...

seriously, what is the point of marriage? and I mean SERIOUSLY? finish this sentence. it is imperative that the nations of the world legally recognize matrimonial marriage (because / to / for) ...

procreation?
   what? you cant fuck without a ring, cake and a contract?

clearly we can agree that procreation is not about marriage; or the inverse. 

marriage (specifically the tax loophole) is a financial incentive to grow population. the world has more than enough people. women, historically, have been homemakers. they have also been the gestation engines of the human race. of course they are the mothers of the future generations but in all honesty if there were no children you would still live out your own life, with your own thoughts and your own experiences; would you not? having a child is only to satisfy a biological craving. this is not a "need"; it is an earthly want. babies do not come from a magical either-world they are the biological soup of sperm and ova provided from the DNA donors. this is usually what results from extracurricular, pleasure sex.

women, historically, have also been prevented from engaging in all of: education, ownership, record-keeping (history), commerce, ...all manner of professions not related to human-livestock.
that being the case, women were in fact considered less than second class humans, they were considered property, human breeding livestock and chattel. regarding that inequality some men were probably not monsters. so they probably did not require their women to live in abject poverty while they gestated the children. but they still probably kept in mind the general financial cost to bared child ratio. naturally you just cant ... a woman who doesent put out a decent amount of children.

men want tax write-offs for their women livestock and the children that they bare. to that end they declared the women and children as financial burdens —a.k.a. dependents. these, so called, burdens were previously not document-able and exchangeable wealth; now they became a tax write-off. still, children are not a necessity; then, and even in this day and age they are optional. and like all other optional things there should not be a significant national endorsement of children.

so what would happen if children cost more money? what would happen if we stopped giving a tax incentive to have children? 

wealthy people would budget to have children. people who are not wealthy would have to budget to have children. those who cannot afford another person in their life would have to accept that as the way the world is. resources are not unlimited; endless exponential growth is not sustainable. if they want children they need to find the resources to make that a reality or they have children in the face of no financial incentive and go broke. this is not class warfare. I do not promote a desire for the wealthy to 'feel the joy' of child rearing. children are not a toy and they are not there for your entertainment, they exist to live their own lives regardless of what you desire. it is just eliminating an unreasonable tax incentive to increase population.

what about accidental births? 

what accidental births? birth is not accidental. like I wrote before babies do not come from somewhere. they are grown in the sexual gestation organs of the female species. if a woman willfully ignores the fact that a human is growing inside her, it is her financial responsibility. she can sue the man for financial support, sure, its up to the court to decide that case.

what I am recommending is to just take away all financial (tax) birth incentives. nothing else. this is not a hyperbolic argument to anything else. marriage would have no legal or financial meaning. marriage would just be the arrangement among the consenting adults. women who desire to be wives become wives. men who desire to be husbands become husbands. no magical thing happens. women and children cease to be the property (or tax write-offs) of their husbands. 

and I hope that everyone recognizes: a lack of 'citizens' is not a lack of people.

corporate personhood

I think I can settle this debate once and for all (how modest of me /s). so many people for so many years have been arguing back and forth on behalf of human rights for corporations. why do we have to argue if these rights are human rights? can they not just be rights granted in mere legal terms on paper? human rights are unalienable. granted rights are just bargained legal terms. corporations only exist as bargained legal terms; humans exist regardless of legal jargon. clearly corporations are simple bargained rights, not unalienable rights —perhaps we can just call them rules. to call into question the personhood of a corporation is a slippery slope, a premeditated effort to twist, bypass or usurp logic that would otherwise limit wealth accumulation/hoarding. the goal is clear: the property —or tool— known as a corporation is designed to accumulate wealth for its owners. giving the owners more leverage —in every possible way. the most popular example in current media is corporations exercising freedom of speech (as if corporations distribute dialog not directly from the owners themselves or coerced employees afraid to lose their jobs). property cannot be used give a person's freedom of speech duplicity. the rule has always been: one person one vote. a corporation is not a stake holder; it is actually a stake to be held. their existence is that of property. a corporation is, by its very definition, property.
it can be bargained that property can own other property but is, in and of itself, always owned. the property owned by that corporation, by transitive rules, is owned within that same hierarchy of ownership; the roots always go back to some flesh and blood human (regardless how dead their soul is). in fact, nothing about a corporation can ever be free from ownership. in my opinion that is in antithesis of what a person is.

the deliberate purpose to gain corporate personhood is wealth accumulation/hoarding. if that is its stated goal then we have the rights as actual persons to deny that, bargained, granted "right". the purpose of gaining corporate personhood is not a matter of fighting persecution or some lofty social good that would be achieved; it is simple greed. anyone fighting for the rights to hoard excessive wealth should fight an uphill battle. that said, we have the right —I would say the obligation— to resist them.

I can use analogies of past slavery or current pet ownership but I feel these arguments hold up well on their own. I request constructive dialog on the matter. if there are holes in my logic, I welcome reasonable criticism.