Rather than bleat and moan about the political monstrosity that is news today, let’s instead look at thing to do in Kelowna. Things I am happy to be returning to from the wilds of Idaho.
Speaking of Idaho, while there are some good people here (and more than a few), it’s one of the most culturally backward spots imaginable. Sort of a colder Mississippi, or a sage brushier Nova Scotia. I’ve seen more racism, classism and closed-mindedness here than anywhere, except possibly Japan. At least the Japanese have the bad excuse of being a racially homogenous society (yes, they use that lie lots). It’s combined with some impressive cleverness, and some disturbing Appalacian-style feuding.
So, all in all, a weird place of contrasts, staggering toward the twenty-first century like an eager but fearful drunk.
The theater
The Post Haus
Ozeki
Wine!
The bridge
The family, of course
Four weeks and counting
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Countdown
One more month before I can go home. It makes me happy, but seems like an awfully long time. Anyway, Here's a present. Go buy the album. No, seriously. This song could be about, oh, half my relatives, really.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
desktop background - spring sky
Because it's nice to share, I give you a free pic for your wallpaper enjoyment.
Love it or ... oh yeah, leaving
So my papers are finally in order, I can rejoin my wife and children and live happily ever after in Canada, come June.
“Won’t you miss the United States?” says my imaginary friend, the one who asks me stupid questions as a prep for people who ask me equally stupid questions in a well-meaning way.
Short answer: No.
I’ve lived abroad for better than half a decade in my adult life. Not on military bases, something most Americans see as living abroad, which is hilariously mistaken – it’s about as foreign as living in a WalMart surrounded by barbed wire. In any case, those years living abroad, learning other languages, cultural mores and eating other food have done what no amount of study or forum-spasms could: It’s made me realize that nations are an abstracted, outdated concept kept in place by governments that would cease to be without them.
The world is made of people and cultures, not nations, states or borders.
So no, I won’t miss the nationalistic land of my birth, which proudly, but with heartwrenching ignorance, screams “we are the best county on earth” and fails to see how it has frittered away its golden opportunities.
I’m not a prophet of disaster. I’m sure the U.S. will eventually adapt, work out how to survive in a century that has (culturally and politically) left it behind, but I don’t really care. My attachments are to people and places, not to squares of colored fabric on poles or imaginary lines on maps.
A lot of people mumble about being global citizens and internationally savvy, but I have news for you, once you become globalized, you realize a more basic truth; you’re just a person, as is your neighbor, and your neighbor’s neighbor, all the way around the blue planet we all dwell on. There aren’t any meaningful clubs, nations, tribes, unions, republics, monarchies or cults. There are just people.
Living your life in adherence to things other than people makes for violence and death, for pogroms and racism and holy wars and zealotry of all sorts. I’m not going to do that, and you shouldn’t, either.
Besides, the poutine is really tasty in Canada, and caesars are just delicious.
“Won’t you miss the United States?” says my imaginary friend, the one who asks me stupid questions as a prep for people who ask me equally stupid questions in a well-meaning way.
Short answer: No.
I’ve lived abroad for better than half a decade in my adult life. Not on military bases, something most Americans see as living abroad, which is hilariously mistaken – it’s about as foreign as living in a WalMart surrounded by barbed wire. In any case, those years living abroad, learning other languages, cultural mores and eating other food have done what no amount of study or forum-spasms could: It’s made me realize that nations are an abstracted, outdated concept kept in place by governments that would cease to be without them.
The world is made of people and cultures, not nations, states or borders.
So no, I won’t miss the nationalistic land of my birth, which proudly, but with heartwrenching ignorance, screams “we are the best county on earth” and fails to see how it has frittered away its golden opportunities.
I’m not a prophet of disaster. I’m sure the U.S. will eventually adapt, work out how to survive in a century that has (culturally and politically) left it behind, but I don’t really care. My attachments are to people and places, not to squares of colored fabric on poles or imaginary lines on maps.
A lot of people mumble about being global citizens and internationally savvy, but I have news for you, once you become globalized, you realize a more basic truth; you’re just a person, as is your neighbor, and your neighbor’s neighbor, all the way around the blue planet we all dwell on. There aren’t any meaningful clubs, nations, tribes, unions, republics, monarchies or cults. There are just people.
Living your life in adherence to things other than people makes for violence and death, for pogroms and racism and holy wars and zealotry of all sorts. I’m not going to do that, and you shouldn’t, either.
Besides, the poutine is really tasty in Canada, and caesars are just delicious.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Five concepts you need to know about before opening your mouth
In light of the constant misuse of the following terms, I have mined wiki (which god knows others could do but won’t) and made a few hopefully illuminating comments.
(From Wiki) Socialism: refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation; often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.
Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential, and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.
Note: How many programs in the United States are socialist in nature? Sit down, think about it. Does the “American way of life” include creating equal opportunities for everyone to be all they can be? Are resources in America free to the market, or are they regulated by law? If you removed all regulation – a truly free market – what would occur? Who would benefit?
Socialism is limited by diminishing returns in rewards versus labor. It suffers some of the difficulties of communism in that respect, but as it’s an economic model, not a philosophy, it’s possible that it may be melded with capitalism in many situations to insure an avoidance of stagnation.
(From Wiki) Capitalism is an economic system where capital and land, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), are privately owned; labor, goods and resources are traded in markets; and profit, is distributed to the owners invested in technologies and industries. The pervasiveness of wage labor is another important feature of capitalism, which depends on non-labor income derived from property not intended for the owner's personal use. Also see rise of financial capitalism, which controls all other forms of capitalism.
There is no consensus on the definition of capitalism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category. There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture. Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define capitalism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.
Note: Capitalism is a vague, broad system not delineated even by the experts with any assurance. In the end, the one fact of capitalism that all agree on is that private ownership, historically and currently in the hands of a few, has held most goods, and that income for goods-holders comes not from use or labor, but the labor of others. It’s simply mercantilism writ large.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy, dictatorships, right or left. It’s an economic model of interpersonal trade. It’s an incredibly energetic one, but is also prone to abuse and wildly fluctuating levels if unregulated, or regulated poorly.
Question: If no taxes were paid, no government funds were disbursed, no regulation was in place, no legal recourse, what would occur? (Trick question, please research the industrial revolution and study micro free-markets like turn-of-the-century company mining towns)
(From Wiki) Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.
Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution and only possible after a socialist stage develops the productive forces, leading to a superabundance of goods and services.
"Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states, which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism.
Note: Communism is a philosophy masquerading as a governmental form. It makes several unsafe assumptions – the most glaring of which is the old Marxist saw of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – which fails to take a basic human tendency (greed) into account. It’s expectation that a rewardless system will result in a profusion of goods is also extremely questionable.
It assumes a pure democracy, something that the United States founders repeatedly called unworkable, settling for a Republic, instead. It is, in fact the ultimate democracy, at least on paper as a proposed governmental method.
It’s worth nothing that all authoritarian governments, as they tend to seize control of industry, are Marxist in that particular respect.
Regulating and seizing control are not the same thing. Keep this in mind. All industries in the US are regulated, otherwise your water would be poisonous and your air unbreathable. As an aside, arguing that “companies are smarter than that” is fraudulent, their own histories show that isn’t so.
What Marxist elements exist in the US? What industries are solely owned by the government? Answer: None. Even nuclear weapons are produced (in whole or part) by privately-owned companies.
Is this a good thing?
(From Wiki) Nationalism involves a strong identification of one's social identity with that of a nation or state. The subject can include the belief that one's nation is of primary importance. It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures. Nationalism is sometimes reactionary, calling for a return to a national past, and sometimes for the expulsion of foreigners. Other forms of nationalism are revolutionary, calling for the establishment of an independent state as a homeland for an ethnic underclass.
Nationalism emphasizes collective identity - a 'people' must be autonomous, united, and express a single national culture. However, some nationalists stress individualism as an important part of their own national identity.
Note: Most facist governments use nationalism as a way to grip the psyche. So, in fact, did most repressive communist regimes. Why, then, are some in the US so extraordinarily nationalist? Examine parties and organizations you are familiar with for exclusionary, nationalist practices, and inclusionary progressive ones. Then ask yourself why you prefer one or the other.
Nationalism hates change. If change is unavoidable, what does that mean for highly nationalistic cultures?
(From Wiki) Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy). The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (krátos) "power", in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC. Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes: equality and freedom.[dubious – discuss] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated – through the use of balances – to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.
Note: Democracy is a buzzword in the US, one almost devoid of meaning or understanding by those who use it. When examined, are the democratic precepts of “equality, freedom ... equal access to power” capitalistic ideas? Socialistic? Nationalistic? A governmental decree – a constitution in the Wiki example – is used to guarantee rights and liberties for a body of citizens. Is that a concept arising from capitalist or socialist thought?
In conclusion: These five concepts and methodologies are not polar opposites of each other in real-world applications. Nations that have tried to rigidly mold their law to any one concept, rather than an admixture, have failed, over and over again. To bandy these terms about without a deep understanding of their meaning, and their historical effects, is both ignorant and counterproductive.
First learn, then do.
(From Wiki) Socialism: refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation; often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.
Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential, and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.
Note: How many programs in the United States are socialist in nature? Sit down, think about it. Does the “American way of life” include creating equal opportunities for everyone to be all they can be? Are resources in America free to the market, or are they regulated by law? If you removed all regulation – a truly free market – what would occur? Who would benefit?
Socialism is limited by diminishing returns in rewards versus labor. It suffers some of the difficulties of communism in that respect, but as it’s an economic model, not a philosophy, it’s possible that it may be melded with capitalism in many situations to insure an avoidance of stagnation.
(From Wiki) Capitalism is an economic system where capital and land, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), are privately owned; labor, goods and resources are traded in markets; and profit, is distributed to the owners invested in technologies and industries. The pervasiveness of wage labor is another important feature of capitalism, which depends on non-labor income derived from property not intended for the owner's personal use. Also see rise of financial capitalism, which controls all other forms of capitalism.
There is no consensus on the definition of capitalism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category. There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture. Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define capitalism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.
Note: Capitalism is a vague, broad system not delineated even by the experts with any assurance. In the end, the one fact of capitalism that all agree on is that private ownership, historically and currently in the hands of a few, has held most goods, and that income for goods-holders comes not from use or labor, but the labor of others. It’s simply mercantilism writ large.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy, dictatorships, right or left. It’s an economic model of interpersonal trade. It’s an incredibly energetic one, but is also prone to abuse and wildly fluctuating levels if unregulated, or regulated poorly.
Question: If no taxes were paid, no government funds were disbursed, no regulation was in place, no legal recourse, what would occur? (Trick question, please research the industrial revolution and study micro free-markets like turn-of-the-century company mining towns)
(From Wiki) Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.
Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution and only possible after a socialist stage develops the productive forces, leading to a superabundance of goods and services.
"Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states, which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism.
Note: Communism is a philosophy masquerading as a governmental form. It makes several unsafe assumptions – the most glaring of which is the old Marxist saw of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – which fails to take a basic human tendency (greed) into account. It’s expectation that a rewardless system will result in a profusion of goods is also extremely questionable.
It assumes a pure democracy, something that the United States founders repeatedly called unworkable, settling for a Republic, instead. It is, in fact the ultimate democracy, at least on paper as a proposed governmental method.
It’s worth nothing that all authoritarian governments, as they tend to seize control of industry, are Marxist in that particular respect.
Regulating and seizing control are not the same thing. Keep this in mind. All industries in the US are regulated, otherwise your water would be poisonous and your air unbreathable. As an aside, arguing that “companies are smarter than that” is fraudulent, their own histories show that isn’t so.
What Marxist elements exist in the US? What industries are solely owned by the government? Answer: None. Even nuclear weapons are produced (in whole or part) by privately-owned companies.
Is this a good thing?
(From Wiki) Nationalism involves a strong identification of one's social identity with that of a nation or state. The subject can include the belief that one's nation is of primary importance. It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures. Nationalism is sometimes reactionary, calling for a return to a national past, and sometimes for the expulsion of foreigners. Other forms of nationalism are revolutionary, calling for the establishment of an independent state as a homeland for an ethnic underclass.
Nationalism emphasizes collective identity - a 'people' must be autonomous, united, and express a single national culture. However, some nationalists stress individualism as an important part of their own national identity.
Note: Most facist governments use nationalism as a way to grip the psyche. So, in fact, did most repressive communist regimes. Why, then, are some in the US so extraordinarily nationalist? Examine parties and organizations you are familiar with for exclusionary, nationalist practices, and inclusionary progressive ones. Then ask yourself why you prefer one or the other.
Nationalism hates change. If change is unavoidable, what does that mean for highly nationalistic cultures?
(From Wiki) Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy). The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (krátos) "power", in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC. Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes: equality and freedom.[dubious – discuss] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated – through the use of balances – to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.
Note: Democracy is a buzzword in the US, one almost devoid of meaning or understanding by those who use it. When examined, are the democratic precepts of “equality, freedom ... equal access to power” capitalistic ideas? Socialistic? Nationalistic? A governmental decree – a constitution in the Wiki example – is used to guarantee rights and liberties for a body of citizens. Is that a concept arising from capitalist or socialist thought?
In conclusion: These five concepts and methodologies are not polar opposites of each other in real-world applications. Nations that have tried to rigidly mold their law to any one concept, rather than an admixture, have failed, over and over again. To bandy these terms about without a deep understanding of their meaning, and their historical effects, is both ignorant and counterproductive.
First learn, then do.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
SOCIALIZM! GET TH' DAWGS, PA!
When you next have some dyed-in-the-wool political ignoramus tell you Obama is a socialist, point them at this.
Speaking as someone who shares many socialist ideals, this is spot on, until you get to the ignorant teabagger who presumes he has a clue what socialism is.
America will be socialist when workers of a company can, by vote, determine company policies and benefits. In other words, never.
Speaking as someone who shares many socialist ideals, this is spot on, until you get to the ignorant teabagger who presumes he has a clue what socialism is.
America will be socialist when workers of a company can, by vote, determine company policies and benefits. In other words, never.
Monday, April 12, 2010
More reasons for joy
Why the US sucks part upteen-infinity
Because we'd rather our children die of STDs and have babies at 15. This country is basically turning into Iran ... without the good food.
Also this.
Basically slave trading for dollars
Because we'd rather our children die of STDs and have babies at 15. This country is basically turning into Iran ... without the good food.
Also this.
Basically slave trading for dollars
Morning cheer!
You feel lucky, punks?
Yeah, serving and protecting. And shooting them damn nigras. In the back. Odd that I don't trust half who wear badges. I must be paranoid or something.
Also, I love my job. Read the comments. From journalists everywhere to ignorant idiots - suck a dick. You don't deserve the service you get.
Yeah, serving and protecting. And shooting them damn nigras. In the back. Odd that I don't trust half who wear badges. I must be paranoid or something.
Also, I love my job. Read the comments. From journalists everywhere to ignorant idiots - suck a dick. You don't deserve the service you get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
