Nanny of the Year 2012

From the good folks at ReasonTV, hosted by Ted Balaker.

Star Dreck; How the Federation Fails.

Set phasers on sanctimonious!

Every once in a while I like to poke fun at popular culture.  The sphere of geekdom, of course, is a large part of popular culture and in turn, Star Trek is a large part of geekdom.   No science fiction franchise is immune from comparison to the iconic Star Trek universe consisting of 5 live action television series, 1 animated series, 11 (soon to be 12) films,  countless games, action figures, plastic hobby models,  costumes and toy props.   The fans themselves are so dedicated and prolific that they have inspired at least 2 documentaries and have continue to fill convention halls in cities across the world for decades.

Behold; the future.

By all accounts, Star Trek is just good clean fun and most of the fans simply love the fantasy and spectacle of the fictional universe.   However I have noticed in recent years that many self-proclaimed Socialists, Communists and even the nutty "Zeitgeist" movement advocates, hereafter referred to as "techno-leftists" (I don't know if that's a real term, but damn it, I'm using it anyway), point toward Star Trek and specifically, the Federation as their model civilization.  To my mind, there is no more sense in choosing a fictional universe meant for entertainment as a model society as there is in choosing the board game Monopoly as a model for real estate investment.   Nevertheless, the point has been brought up enough times to provoke a response, if only done for fun.   Warning; The following is lengthy and is littered with references and jargon that relate to the Star Trek franchise. Anyone unfamiliar with Star Trek will find the following very confusing.  Geeks read on. 

Allow me to say that for the most part, I like Star Trek.  I like the swashbuckling of the original Star Trek series, the camaraderie of the Next Generation, the politics of Deep Space 9, the sense of a long journey home of Voyager and even the clunky, analog feel of Enterprise.    Like any good fantasy, Star Trek makes it easy for viewers to see themselves in the adventures themselves, fighting (and loving) alongside their favorite characters.    In effect, the fans felt as though they were along for the ride as a silent, but present, crew members.   Indeed, I remember as a kid there was a promotion on a cereal box in which contest entrants could win a cameo appearance on Star Trek the Next Generation.  The promotion showed characters Riker and Troi on either side of a human figure cutout with the words "This could be YOU!"    How exciting!   As a kid I wanted Star Trek to be real. And why not?  A universe free from poverty, sickness, war or racism, free access to Holodecks and food replicators...sign me up! Hell, maybe Star Trek was real and the "show" was just a way to gently acquaint people, such as myself, to the real world.

 In retrospect, my belief in Star Trek was like my belief in Santa Claus; deep down I knew it wasn't real, but it was still pleasant to pretend, at least for a while.  Alas, I grew up and eventually came to realize what a terrible place the Star Trek universe is.

To be fair, many of the show's inconsistencies and contradictions are the result of different writers working at different times, and while writers typically follow a writer's "bible", they might not follow what other writers had written before them.   Also, budget and time constraints are always a factor, so the writers, actors and even production designers are forced to cut corners in order to tell a story in a practical way.   However, if one is going to use Star Trek as a model for society, at least some of these inconsistencies must be addressed.  (We can safely ignore unimportant issues like that of Data's Cat, who, throughout the series not only changes breed, but also gender.)

But before we identify what is wrong with Star Trek, let us examine what techno-leftists find so appealing.  As one self-identified Communist (to whom I will not give credit as he will likely spam me or someone I love to death, but if you really want to know, lookup "examples of communism in star trek" on youtube and find the comments most commonly flagged for spam and you will see what I am talking about)  quotes, ad nauseum, counselor Troi from Star Trek; First Contact.

"[Proof of intelligent, extraterrestrial life] unites Humanity in a way no one ever thought possible when they realize they're not alone in the universe. Poverty, disease, war -- they'll all be gone within the next fifty years." (emphasis mine)

Troi makes this prophecy to Zefram Cochrane when the crew was in the "past" of 2061.   The plot is too complex to explain here, but since Troi is from the future, she believes the statement to be true. 

Captain Picard too makes several comments that appeal to the techno-leftists.   For example, in the TNG episode "The Neutral Zone", the Enterprise recovers 3 frozen people from the late 20th century.  One of whom expresses his deep concern over his stock portfolio and is shaken to learn that not only does the Stock Market no longer exist in the 24th Century, but, as Captain Picard tells it;

"A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy."

In First Contact, when asked how much the Enterprise cost to build Picard says;

 "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity."

The series creator, Gene Roddenberry also contributed to the sense of a moneyless, one-world government.  Writer Ronald D. Moore recalls;

"By the time I joined TNG, Gene [Roddenberry] had decreed that money most emphatically did NOT exist in the Federation, nor did 'credits' and that was that. Personally, I've always felt this was a bunch of hooey, but it was one of the rules and that's that."

A line from Voyager Episode Dark Frontier exemplifies this point. Tom Paris explains;

"When the New World Economy took shape in the late 22nd century and money went the way of the dinosaur, Fort Knox was turned into a museum."

Lastly, the idea of a post-scarcity world appeals to the techno-leftists because, after all, why toil doing boring or dangerous work if one has access to literally any good for free? 

From the Series, Films and supporting material, we can gather a small, but by no means exhaustive, list of what appeals most to techno-leftists.

• Monolithic Government with (apparently) no political parties
• High reliance on technology
• No money
• No poverty
• No war
• No racism
• No disease

Sounds awesome right?  Not so fast.  Lets examine these claims one by one.

 Monolithic Government;  True.  The United Federation of Planets is a highly centralized military dictatorship with Starfleet as it's sword.   The Federation clearly controls everything; communication, commerce (what little is left) and even food distribution.  There is no Coke, no Pepsi, no Snapple, nothing but what the Federation supplied replicators will issue with the consensus being that replicated food and drink are inferior to the genuine articles.

Politically, the Federation is a mess.   It seems mostly Starfleet officials make the lion's share of decisions but sprinkled in a few of the original cast films is the Federation President who openly negotiates with foreign powers and even claims that "This President is not above the law."

Don't like how I run things? Then please address all 

complaints to the office of go fuck yourself.

But by the time of TNG there isn't a peep out of the executive's office. The President's office does however come up again in DS9, when the Federation is at war with the Dominion.   From Memory Alpha's page on the DS9 episode Homefront;

Sisko has a number of recommendations for the President regarding the Dominion infiltration and how it can be combated. The President is not eager to turn Earth into a military outpost where everybody must submit to blood tests and phaser examinations of every room must be carried out. He quickly changes his mind however when it turns out that the attaché case Sisko was carrying is, in fact, Odo. Odo points out that Sisko and Leyton were allowed to see the President without having to undergo a blood test or having their personal property checked. If he had been a Founder, he could have killed the President or simply taken his place. The President begrudgingly agrees to allow the new security procedures saying that it has taken a lot of hard work to change Earth into the peaceful place that it now is and that he doesn't wish for this paradise to be destroyed. "We're not looking to destroy paradise," says Sisko, "we're looking to save it."

So, on a whim, the President can turn Earth into a series of checkpoints and blood tests. Sisko might call that the preservation of paradise, I would call it the gestapo.   One might argue that it is only Federation facilities that are subject to the increased security measures, but since the Federation clearly control most of the the means of travel, the planet is effectively put on lock-down.   Is there any sort of legislative or judicial oversight?  Is there even the ability to protest?   Apparently not.  If Earth has it's own government then it was overridden by the Federation President. Whatever the Federation nomenklatura say, goes.    As for the claim of "Paradise", well Micheal Eddington sets that record straight.

You tell 'em Mike.

High reliance on technology; True, but with dire consequences.  Between transporter accidents, coolant leaks in the reactor and Holodeck malfunctions, it is clear that no one knows how anything works on a Federation ship.    In the TNG episode "Evolution", microscopic robots called Nanites take over and almost destroy the Enterprise.  Why?  Because a teenager left a petri dish open.  That's right, a high schooler's science project escaped and almost destroyed the most advanced ship in the Federation.    In TNG episode "Where Silence has Lease", the USS Yamato (the Enterprise's sister ship) is destroyed by downloading  alien computer data that couldn't be processed correctly.  The same fate almost befell the Enterprise until the crew made the last ditch decision to reboot the ship.  This means that no one aboard the Yamato was smart enough to hit the off and on buttons on the ship before it was too late.   The sister ships Yamato and Enterprise  simply lack something as simple as a honeypot to quarantine and test questionable alien data.   After the crisis, the crew of the Enterprise are pleased to learn that is was not, in fact, a design flaw in Galaxy-Class starships that caused the Yamato disaster as originally suspected.  I'd say not isolating your critical systems from harm is a pretty damned serious design flaw.

Whoopsie daisy! I guess someone forgot to install the firewall.

The Holodeck too malfunctions in multiple episodes, again, threatening various crew members, but also leading to the problem of "holo-addiction" with crew members becoming obsessed with simulations.  Evidently zipping around the universe, discovering new life and civilizations is so boring that some prefer holograms to reality.    Whatever the case, it is clear nobody understands how the contraptions are made.  Riker and Data think that most of what is in the Holodeck is real; replicated plants, rocks, water etc. While Picard explains that a Holodeck simulation is merely a collection of photons and force-fields.   Yet everyone is caught off guard when the "simulated" Professor Moriarty becomes self-aware.   As for the engineering of the Federation, one only needs to look towards the unfortunate Geordi LaForge.   Why he is repeatedly put in harm's way on missions unrelated to engineering seems to me as a serious misallocation of resources, but even when he is where he is supposed to be, the poor fellow seems to attract nothing but disaster.   Is he really the best engineer in Starfleet? Or is Starfleet just that poorly engineered?

Please, for his sake and yours, don't let Geordi near 

any consoles, or turbolifts, or phasers, or rocks, or people.

No Money; Claimed but demonstrably false.  This is one of the more confused and contradictory topics in the Star Trek Universe.  Several episodes in multiple series and films make reference to "payments", "prices", "credit" to an "account" and so on. It can therefore be assumed that the Federation has some kind of monetary system, but the details are never explained because, well, it's science fiction.   It is clear however that the Ferengi not only use money, but this is one of their more distasteful qualities.  So far as the Star Trek Universe is concerned, the only good Ferengi is one that is disinterested in money, which is established to be extremely rare.  Whenever the topic of economics is brought up, it is always with a sense of smugness on the part of the Federation and anyone who pursues profit is seen as being medieval, irrationally self-absorbed and rude.  The Ferengi who exemplify Capitalists, (In the mind of Roddenberry and some of the writers) are cartoony charactures whose only concern is the pursuit of profit.   If the Federation, and for that matter, Gene Roddenberry took the time to stop looking down their noses at money and those who use it, they might discover what money is; a medium of exchange.   In other words, it is a lubricant for creating agreements and investing in new ventures.  To be against money is to be against mutually beneficial exchange.   

Ultimately Roddenberry's vision for the future, particularly in TNG onward was that people only worked because they wanted to, not because they had to.   But, what if someone likes to earn money? What if someone likes to acquire things that cannot be replicated such as original works of art or ancient artifacts.   Such people do exist in Star Trek, and not all of them are villains.  One of the most notable is Captain Jean Luc Picard who is an avid collector of archaeological relics.  So when he says that humanity is no longer "obsessed" with the accumulation of things, take it with a grain of salt.   Of course Picard, when berating a 20th century Capitalist, ignores that the "accumulation of things" is a form of self improvement.    Why should the pursuit of wealth, based on mutually beneficial trade be any different than the pursuit of physical fitness, sexual prowess or mental deftness? What's the harm?  The Federation apparently assumes the zero-sum fallacy with regards to economics.   Evidently, Adam Smith's works didn't survive to the time of Star Trek.

Where's that employee discount you promised me, you cheap bastard!

No Poverty; False.  This is an interesting claim because although Earth doesn't appear to have any problems with poverty, it is clear that many of the Federation's colonies do.  Yet even on Earth, the Capital of the Federation, Picard's own brother and nephew were killed in a fire (Generations).   Perhaps Picard's brother, Robert, eschewed technology that would suppress a fire (like water), but on the other hand, the ships of the Federation have their fire-suppression systems fail very often.  So how "rich" can the average person be if even the flagship of Starfleet can't put out a measly fire.  As for the Federation's colonies, they vary greatly in living standards.   Tasha Yar's planet, Turkana IV, was a failed colony that essentially destroyed itself with civil war and rampant drug abuse.  Nimbus III, the so-called "Planet of Galactic Peace" is a barren wasteland inhabited by the dregs of the Federation, Klingon and Romulan empires. The capital of Nimbus III is ironically called "Paradise City", given that it is populated almost entirely of criminals and the pathetically stricken.   Federation Ambassador St. John Talbot refers to the planet as the "armpit of the galaxy" and it is clear that Nimbus III is used as a place to exile those Ambassadors who have fallen out of political favor within their own government structures.   Nimbus III is a failure of central planning by no less than three galactic powers, with the Federation unable or unwilling to correct the problem. 

 

 Take me down to the Paradise City
Where the people are poor and the sand is gritty.

   Even if we accept the statement that poverty has indeed been eliminated on Earth, this is like saying poverty has been eliminated in the richest parts of Beverly Hills, given the size of the Federation relative to the size of the Earth. How dishonest must the Federation officers be to insist that poverty has been "eliminated" when they are only referring to a comparatively tiny minority of the Federation?  After all, if no one "wants" on Earth, why can't the benevolent Federation make all member planets just as pleasant? 

No War; False.  If it is meant that there is no intraplanetary war on Earth, this might be acceptable, but, like the poverty claim, this would be a dishonest statement by reason of willfully omission. War means war, either from without or from within and it is clear that Earth itself, not just the fringes of the Federation, has been a participant in many wars and at least a handful of direct attacks against Earth itself.  The Borg actually succeeded in assimilating the Earth, but  the Earth was saved by that Sci-Fi deus ex machina; time travel.  In the 200 or so years between Enterprise and Voyager, the Federation and Earth with it have been at war with the Romulans, Klingons,  Gorn,  Borg,  Dominion and others.  While the Earth itself was not necessarily touched in all of these conflicts, again, given the size of the Federation this is no more accurate than saying the United States was at peace during WWII because Washington D.C. was never directly attacked.  

Off we go to spread peace, with our peace-phasers and peace-torpedoes.

But lets face it; a Space Opera would be pretty boring without a war, so there was plenty of conflict in Star Trek.  This put the writers in a bind; no war means no viewers, but war means the Federation aint so good at the peace game.  The compromise was that the Federation could never be the aggressor, always the defender.  The last to enter war, the first to broker peace.  Sounds great!  But, as the war with the Maquis demonstrates, it is also false.  Without getting into too much detail for this already too-long post, the Maquis formed when the Federation and Cardassian empire redrew the map and several inhabited planets were ceded over to Cardassian control, but it was made clear that the Cardassians never intended to peacefully let the settlers stay on the planets in question and a campaign of harassment began, so the Maquis was created as a means to combat the Cardassian abuses.    The Federation, feigning desire to "keep the peace" branded the Maquis as terrorists and began going after them.  But herein lies the rub; the peace had already been shattered when the Cardassians began harming the lives and property of the colonists.  Whatever treaty was supposed to exist between the two powers was rendered null and void as soon as hostilities began.  The Federation wasn't interested in peace, but appeasement to a hostile force that had a proven track record of war and genocide.  There are other examples of Federation aggression, either officially sanctioned or conducted by rogue leaders, such as Admiral Cartwright and the Khitomer conspiracy, Admiral Mark Jameson and the Mordan IV civil war and forcible removal of the Ba'ku from the planet of the same name.*   So either the Federation is criminally incompetent, or just criminal.   Either way, the Federation is not peaceful. 

*Okay, so the Ba'ku are holier-than-thou assholes and the events surrounding them are morally murky at best, but it is hard to justify their removal when alternatives appeared to exist.  For a hilarious and insightful video review of Star Trek; Insurrection, go here.

No Racism; False.  For all their talk of being an enlightened, multi-ethnic, tapestry of culture, the Federation spends a lot of time in judgement of other races and cultures.  Worse than that, the Federation pigeon-holes entire civilizations for the actions of a few.   For example, commander Kira Nerys makes her feelings known about the Ferengi; 

"They're greedy, misogynistic, untrustworthy little trolls, and I wouldn't turn my back on one of them for a second."

 Kira Nerys; Starfleet Commander, Bajoran Colonel, Racist.

Really Kira?  All of them?  Nerys is not the exception; "Bones" McCoy frequently belittles Spock's racial heritage,  Kirk distrusts Klingons (in fairness, Klingons did murder his son), nearly everyone in TNG, DS9 and Voyager either dislike or distrust the Cardassians, Romulans and Ferengi.   Even Voyager's B'Elanna Torres, herself a half-Human/half-Klingon hybrid is nervous when she discovers that her one-quarter Klingon child will still likely have visible brow ridges.  In a society that is free of racism, why would such insecurity over one's racial heritage exist?    Perhaps Federation society isn't very racist and Torres is just terribly insecure, violent and borderline suicidal...but if so, why was she admitted to Starfleet?    Admission standards must not be very high. 

The self-loathing of Torres aside, an objective analysis of Star Trek reveals that, sadly, racism is alive and well in the 23rd and 24th centuries, but interestingly enough, this topic was addressed several times, even in the original series.  I give the writers credit for at least acknowledging that within the Federation, some pretty blatant racial bigotry existed, but on the other hand, most other races are depicted as monolithic cultures with very little variance among the people. The odd exception to the rule is just that; odd.

No Disease; False.   This is the easiest claim to refute by the shear number of episodes which concerned illnesses of one sort or another.   Captain Picard, in an alternate future and in at least one book, is diagnosed with "Irumodic Syndrome".   This is the guy who has access to the best doctors in the Galaxy.  If that were not enough, Picard almost dies on the operating table when his artificial heart was being replaced because of the surgeon's incompetence.  In a universe as advanced as the Star Trek universe is, I would expect 2 things; that artificial hearts last a lifetime, and that surgeons know what they are doing.  According to the show, this is asking too much.   Suffice to say, if the Captain of the flagship gets lousy care, what hope is there for the rest of the Federation?   For that matter, Admiral Mark Jameson contracts the incurable Iverson's Disease. Other diseases include Clarkes Disease, Sharat Syndrome, Darnay's Disease and Rushton Infection, to name a few.

It's the big one Elizabeth! I'm comin' to join you!

Conclusion; Living under the Federation boot would be unpleasant to say the least.  Sure, one is free to self-improve, so long as it is the self-improvement the Federation approves of.  The sacred "Prime Directive" which is held so dear turns out to be quite flexible, particularly when its violation provides a benefit to the Federation.  If there is no benefit, well, the Federation is quite happy letting other civilizations go extinct even if by no fault of their own.   True, no society lives up to the hype, but the Federation doesn't even work on paper without violating the various laws and directives that are supposed to make it so special.    Ultimately, Star Trek just an entertainment franchise and should be enjoyed in much the same way potato chips are enjoyed; pleasant junk.   It shouldn't be taken seriously and neither should anyone who believes the Federation to be an ideal society. 

Jesus, the future sucks. Let's drown our sorrows

in these tankards of Romulan ale.

Special thanks to all those geeks out there maintaining great sites like Memory Alpha, SF Debris and Wikipedia.  Live long and prosper.

Gun Rights Versus Security

In light of the Sandy Hook Connecticut massacre and the monster Adam Lanza,  I think it is appropriate to address the gun issue, albeit a few days after the tragedy to allow tempers to cool and for more facts to come in.  I know my opinions will be of no comfort to anyone affected by these terrible crimes, but hopefully it will help expand the important dialog.

Let it first be said that reasonable people can disagree on gun control and, in general, people have the best of intentions, but differ on the means.

As far as numbers, it is important to point out that, although such mass murders are truly sickening, murders overall have been on the decline since the 1990s.   This is despite a greater population and a greater number of guns.    Assuming the source is correct, there is a gun for just about every man, woman and child in the United States, yet there are not 310 million murders or accidents.

This presents a paradox which is not easily understood or explained.  On the one hand we have more people, more guns and less crime, yet mass killings seem to occur with alarming frequency.

Another thing to consider is the worst acts of murder committed in the U.S. were not committed with firearms at all. For example;

• September 11th attacks used planes hijacked with box cutters, killing nearly 3,000.
• Oklahoma City Federal Building was attacked with a truckload of explosives made from fertilizer, killing 168.
•  Serial Killer Gary Ridgway killed at least 71 victims by strangulation.  Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy used similar M.O.s
• The worst attack on a school was conducted using explosives, killing 45 (including the bomber) in 1927.

Even in societies which are known for being socially and economically stable have witnessed horrible mass killings, such as in Norway and Japan.  Of course none of this is of any comfort to the families of the victims of any murder, despite the means and it is shocking to know that if someone really wants to murder, he will find the means.

So what do we do about it?  Even if we assumed that there was no second amendment and guns could be banned tomorrow, would it work?   We know from the prohibition of alcohol and drugs that black markets spring up all over the place.  What practical means is there to remove 310 million firearms anyway?

On the other hand, we know that armed people do indeed defend themselves and others from mass killers and rioters.   For example, there was Vice Principal Joel Myrick who stopped killer Luke Woodham with his .45.    There was Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at New Life Church in Colorado Springs who cut down spree killer Mathew Murray, which more than likely prevented many more deaths.  And there are the Korean store owners during the 1992 L.A. riots who defended their lives and property.

Are these the exceptions to the rule?  I'm not sure anyone can say because it is extremely difficult to report on murders that didn't happen because one of the good guys had a gun.   However I don't think that the killings in Newtown/Sandy Hook Connecticut ,  Aurora, Colorado and so on occurring in so-called "gun-free zones" is a coincidence.   After all, if the goal is to kill as many as possible, one looks for the most defenseless.   In the case of Adam Lanza, he killed his mother at home then went to the school.   If the reports are accurate, Lanza killed himself when the police arrived.  In other words, he only stopped killing when others came to challenge him.  A similar pattern existed for Virginia Tech killer, Seung-Hui Cho. 

Considering these factors, I believe it makes sense for there to be armed personnel  at public schools and to remove the imposed "gun-free zones".    This seems shocking at first, and it might not prevent future violence, but it does give innocent people a fair chance, and while the killer is occupied with well-trained defenders, it gives more time for others to escape.     This is not a perfect solution.  There is no perfect solution, particularly when mental illness is not well understood.     But, this is not an impractical solution either, and not as strange as one might first believe.   For instance, when I was in 5th grade, my classmates and I were given D.A.R.E. training over the course of a few weeks, which included regular visits by a uniformed police officer.  As she was on duty, she was armed.  The notion went from shocking to routine in a matter of hours, and you had better believe that we were a well behaved class at those times.    I believe there is no shortage of organizations who will provide very effective safety and accuracy training to school personnel.

The other side of the equation is much harder, and that is prevention.  Preventing not only "crazies" from getting guns, but also from getting knives, cars and explosives.   This means we all have to do our part to keep our guns and other potential weapons secure, and (this is the hard part) we must address the issue of those who are mentally disturbed.     For I believe the root cause is the disturbed man's desire to kill, and not the means he chooses to do it.   But I do not believe that disarming innocent people will prevent any future tragedies. 

 Suzanna Hupp's testimony illuminates the subject rather succinctly.

Murder in any capacity is a terrible thing.  Perhaps the most terrible thing we humans know.  But we still must be practical, and we still want to be free.  I firmly believe that the reason that the U.S. has not had a Stalin or Hitler or Mao or faced an invasion since 1814 is because of our 2nd Amendment.   Murderous psychotics have taken so much from us, it would be a mistake to allow them to take away our freedoms and right to self-defense as well.


Edit; Here is an extremely interesting opinion that I read for the firs time today and it has been making its rounds on the web.  I believe it explains the case for armed teachers better than I, and brings up a point I  neglected to mention; it should be voluntary.  Read it for yourself here and see what you think. 

That Which I Am Certain Will Cost Me Friends.

Here are a few pictures which I made and I had completely forgotten about.   Some are a little dated, but here they are all the same.  As I have said before, I should have started this blog long ago so i could have made some posters for Bush in the same spirit.

That's the Constitution he's standing on by the way.

10 Pet Peeves I Encounter Online Almost Daily

1. Using "ur"  instead of  "you are".   
2. Using "your" instead of "you're".   
3. Confusing there, their and they're. 
4. Confusing too, two and to.   
5. Using double negatives such as "We couldn't do nothing with the machine." 
6. Using non-words like "dat" or "dis" instead of "that" to "this".  
7. Using "could of" or "would of"  instead of "could have" or "would have".  
8. Using "wat" and "wit" instead of "what" and "with".
9. Using "prolly" instead of "probably"
10. Using the word "literally" when "figuratively" is meant.

TL;DR

There are ways to offer criticism and there are ways to look like an idiot.  Too long, didn't read is the latter.  Can there be anything more juvenile, disrespectful or unintelligent?

In case this is your first time on the internet, posts, articles and  that are considered by some to be too lengthy will earn the appallingly stupid TL;DR.   Yes, some posts are long, but that has no bearing on whether or not the content is relevant, entertaining or true .  TL;DR is perhaps the ultimate in intellectual laziness, for it dismisses a post or article without actually reading it.  

Imagine a person who stands in a movie theater lobby and, when a crowd enters or exits a particularly long film, say Casino or Amadeus*, this person announces to everyone "That film was too long, I didn't watch!"  Or this same person who stands by the cash register at a book store and tells the customers who have just made a purchase, "That book is too long, I didn't read it."

Apart from being extremely annoying, this person is the equivalent of the poster who responds to a written piece with "TD;DR".   Logic would suggest that, unless asked directly, a person who found an entry to be too lengthy, they would silently skip it and go onto something else.  However, the temptation to say something, no matter how inane, proves too strong for some.  So what can someone say, when they have nothing substantive to contribute?   Apparently, all they can muster is TL;DR.   This is somewhat reminiscent of  people who post "first" on message boards, presumably when no other comments have yet been made.  It is childish, meaningless and annoying.

Sometimes, of course, it is perfectly valid to point out that something is too long, but this can only be known if the actual written piece in question were read.   How else could someone know if it was too long, too short or just right unless one knows what is written?    Saying something is too long implies that it was actually read, so the later half of "TL;DR" invalidates the former and thus exposes whoever wrote it as an idiot who pathetically tries to simultaneously denigrate a work they have not read while drawing attention to themselves.   The only alternative is that the fool who responds with TL;DR has actually read the piece but cannot think of any valid critiques, so they resort to the written equivalent of plugging their ears, shutting their eyes and shouting "La la la la".

But we can't all be mature, high minded intellectuals all the time, can we?  In the spirit of both brevity and immaturity, I submit the following response to anyone inept and foolish enough to use TL;DR

 *Unlike many others, I don't regard Amadeus to be very long at all, perhaps because I hold it to be one of the best films ever made.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 

Israel and Property Rights

Israel is a hot-button issue that polarizes people almost instantly.   There is no litmus test for the question of Israel, though people on the left are generally wary of Israel and the perceived injustice done to the Palestinian population.   On the other hand, there are those on the extreme right who do not like Jews in general and are against Israel simply for the fact that it is essentially Jewish. 

For the record, I believe Israel should exist, however this does not excuse many of the actions the Israeli government has taken over the years.   I will also say that much of what is said about a Palestinian state is highly disingenuous.  Jordan is roughly twice the size of Israel, and Syria is about twice the size of Jordan.  Add the territory of the rest of the Arabian peninsula, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq and you have a gigantic amount of land that could easily accommodate the Palestinian population if those nations cared for the Palestinians (as they claim) more than they hated Israel and the Jews.  

I will address these issues and more at another time.  For now, I want to share a very insightful video  on Palestinian property rights and how they pertain to Israel.  

Yaron Brook is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.  For more information, please visit here.

RG3's Classy Take On Race.

I don't follow sports.  Unlike my three brothers, I don't seem to have the "sports gene."  That said, for some strange reason, I love following sports politics.  I like hearing about the player trades, the controversies and the business decisions.   In any event, I have been reading about Washington Redskins Quarterback, Robert Griffin III and his exceptional performance, but also some recent comments made about his race.    Interviewer Chick Hernandez asked him about his status as a black QB.  Griffin answered;

“Whenever you can relate to the population of the team that you play for, I think it makes it that much more special,” Griffin said. “I don’t play too much into the color game, because I don’t want to be the best African American quarterback, I want to be the best quarterback.  But to the fans, and to the fans who think that way and look at me as an African American, it’s important that I succeed, not only for this team, but for them. “Because it gives them that motivation, that hey, you know, an African American went out and played quarterback for my Washington Redskins. So I appreciate that; I don’t ever downplay anything like that. Whoever I can go out every week and motivate to do better and to try to go after their dreams, I’m up for that.”

In another interview, the topic came up again.  Again, Griffin replied;

“I try not to be defined by it (race) , but I understand different perspectives and how people view different things. So I understand they’re excited their quarterback is an African American. I play with a lot of pride, a lot of character, a lot of heart. So I understand that, and I appreciate them for being fans.”

 Classy!  Honest!  A refreshing departure from the oft heard "my people, my struggle" routine.  From what I gather, he doesn't ignore the issue, nor does he dwell on it. I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth, but it seems he just wants to be the best Quarterback he can be, for himself,  his team and the fans.  And it certainly sounds like he is accomplishing just that.    Good for him, and if that was all there was to it, that would be the end of it.


Except that it isn't. 


On ESPN's First Take, panelist Rob Parker said this;

Parker  “And I’ve talked to some people down in Washington D.C., friends of mine, who are around and at some of the press conferences, people I’ve known for a long time. But my question, which is just a straight honest question. Is he a brother, or is he a cornball brother?”
Male Panelis;  What does that mean?
“Well,  he’s black, he kind of does his thing, but he’s not really down with the cause, he’s not one of us.  He’s kind of black, but he’s not really the guy you’d really want to hang out with, because he’s off to do something else.”
Female Panelist;  Why is that your question?
Parker “Well, because I want to find out about him,I don’t know, because I keep hearing these things. We all know he has a white fiancée. There was all this talk about he’s a Republican, which, there’s no information at all. I’m just trying to dig deeper as to why he has an issue. Because we did find out with Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods was like I’ve got black skin but don’t call me black. So people got to wondering about Tiger Woods early on.”

Then there was some business about Griffin's braids, which Parker described as "urban." Stephen  Smith was asked his opinion

Smith;  *Sigh* “Well first of all let me say this: I’m uncomfortable with where we just went, RGIII, the ethnicity, the color of his fiancée is none of our business. It’s irrelevant. He can live his life any way he chooses. The braids that he has in his hair, that’s his business, that’s his life. I don’t judge someone’s blackness based on those kind of things. I just don’t do that. I’m not that kind of guy."

 Good answer.   But, the implication from Parker is that to be a real "brother", one needs to be urban, have a black  fiancée, possibly not be a republican and be a guy "you'd (presumably a black person) really want to hang out with."   Braids are cool urban though, so Griffin can be relived at that.  

As I have written before, Parker's attitude is the essence of racism, which is holding a race to different standards from another.  It's judging a person's racial "authenticity"  by essentially non-racial criteria.    Which, unfortunately, is all too common. 

Parker's opinion is backward and foolish, but I don't think he should be fired.  People are often way to sensitive about race and discussions, even absurd ones, should be allowed to exist. Though the forum was inappropriate,  it was just an opinion after all.  Smith on the other hand should be lauded for a very reasoned and level-headed response.    In the end though, Griffin should be celebrated, not because is a "cornball brother", and not even because of his very mature attitude on race, but because he is awesome at the game he plays. 

Mary Poppins' Guide for Life

Fashions come and go, but a face like this is always in style.

Walt Disney's 1964 classic "Mary Poppins" deserves some attention.  I loved the film as a kid and now I realize that it is ever better than I had remembered.  I never read the books by P.L. Travers, but apparently the film deviates from the source material quite a lot.  It was a Disney production, after all.   The film, of course,  is a clever, whimsical, and fun children's story and older audiences will  appreciate the quality of singing and Julie Andrews'  unexpected but vibrant sex-appeal, seen in the chemistry between the characters Mary and Bert.  But beneath the memorable songs, dance numbers and mixture of live action and animation, there are many lessons often lost on modern viewers.  And yet it is these lessons that endow the film with a timeless quality.   Although the entire film takes place in Edwardian London, the themes are universal.   I will not pore over every detail of the plot.  If you have not seen it, you should go and watch the film yourself and form your own opinions.  That in mind, here is my list of things I learned from Mary Poppins, in no particular order.

• Police should focus on important matters like finding lost children and should not intimidate entrepreneurs or otherwise non-harmful people. 
• Being successful financially and taking pride in one's work is a good thing, but it should be done in harmony with the needs of one's family.
• Women's suffrage  and equal rights in general is a worthy and noble cause, but the pursuit of which should not come at the expense of being too busy for one's family.
• Always listen and consider all options carefully.
• Be firm, but kind.
• Be tidy and prompt, but don't be afraid to occasionally get your hands dirty or be spontaneous.
• Tolerate others, even eccentric neighbors , although you may well want to have a conversation with them about reducing the charge used in the cannon they fire daily. 
• Don't be too proud to try multiple avenues of employment, including manual labor and selling kites.
• All financial transactions should occur with the consent of both parties. Not respecting your customer's wishes can result in panic, a bad reputation and even a run on the banks.
• Find the fun in your work.
• Use your imagination.
• Laughter is critical to a life of happiness, but practical matters must not be ignored.
• Don't look down on blue (or soot) collar workers; they work hard fixing the things the rest of society depends upon. 
• Dancing is excellent exercise, but be wary of frightening cannon-wielding neighbors.
• Nothing, not even magic, is a substitute for good parenting.

Heresy and the Establishment

The hero always goes against the grain.  This brave one finds himself against tremendous odds but fights anyway, even though he is in a small, but righteous, minority.  The hero throws off the shackles and inspires those around him, and goes on to tear down the walls of the corrupt elite in favor of the "true" justice.    This is a recurring theme in our culture going back thousands of years.    After all, was not Jesus of Nazareth considered a heretic?  Were not the founding fathers heretics for challenging the divine right of King George III?    Was not Galileo a heretic for discovering the truth about the heliocentric solar system?

History and legend is filled with such examples.  But, is going against the "establishment" always right?   Contrarians seem to think so.  But libertarians should reject this.

I have noticed in the last few years that among many left-libertarians and anarchists, there is a current of being against anything that is established, particularly if it involves government, but even concepts like bosses and capital accumulation have been demonized by the so-called "free market, anti-capitalists".  I call it the Tyler Durden approach.  Rather than attempting to establish a sensible, practical balance, anyone who is not 100% in lockstep is branded a statist and sometimes even a fascist.  Examples of this logic go as follows;

• Banks colluded with the government and received bailout money, therefore the banks should not be used.
• Food in grocery stores is often produced by large corporations (which are in turn protected by government), therefor only organic, locally gown produce is acceptable.
• Israel occasionally acts with arrogance, therefore Israel should not exist.
• Some taxation happens without consent, therefore all taxation is theft.
• Governments abuse their power, therefore everything government does is evil.

A cursory examination reveals that while the former assertion is usually true, the conclusion is absurdly incorrect and ignores reality;  Banks are essential tools for moving capital, some people like patronizing large stores, some people voluntarily and happily pay taxes and even the government sometimes arrests murderers, rapists and thieves.   This ignorant  all-or-nothing approach is not productive and does not advance liberty, even though it challenges the established powers  in a heretical way, and, owing to our culture, this stubborn irreverence is seen as both pure and brave.  The truth is that such a point of view is childish and impractical.

First of all, being a heretic does not make one's ideas right.  Marx and Hitler were both anti-establishment radicals who sought to elevate mankind (or the parts of it they liked at any rate) to its "rightful" position.   We know the results of their experiments; oppression, war and misery.    These are not the only examples either.  In science, there are always a handful of "scientists"  who claim something is the exact opposite of how it has been previously thought.  Sometimes they are right, but mostly, they are wrong.   In social sciences too, we have those who take a contrarian approach to modern, western culture in favor of primitive people or long lost civilizations.  For whatever is, the contrarians wish it wasn't and declare it false, and whatever isn't is declared true and good.  

Clearly, if justice is to be done, old ideas and power structures must be challenged, but on the other hand sometimes the "cure", such as the Bolshevik Russian Revolution, is worse than the disease.   So what is the solution?   Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet, every case must be dealt with on a case by case basis, but a good starting point is to acknowledge that heresy does not equal truth and that everything, even one's own positions must be examined with skepticism.   Remember that structures exist for a reason, and one cannot easily tear them down and expect nothing to take their place, so the best approach is to cut out the parts which violate rights or don't work, rather than abandoning the entire system.   This is extremely unsatisfying for many libertarians and virtually all anarchists, but it is the only practical approach to take.  Shouts of secession and world-wide anarchy are pipe-dreams, why?  Because history demonstrates this very clearly.   True, some secessions have been successful, most notably the 13 colonies seceding from the British Empire.  But there has never been a secessionist movement which resulted in true stateless anarchy.    Anarchy just isn't in the human spirit.   While societies do not need to be, and shouldn't be, centrally planned, people  still prefer to have firm rules that codify right and wrong and whatever power that establishes those rules effectively becomes government.  There are no exceptions.  Even Anarcho-Capitalist David Friedman couldn't name a proper anarchist society.  With that in mind, let us take another look at the above mentioned assertions with a more sensible, practical set of solutions.

• Banks colluded with the government and received bailout money, therefore the banks should be separated from government.
• Food in grocery stores is often produced by large corporations, therefore free trade and competition will maximize consumers choices.
• Israel occasionally acts with arrogance, therefore policies should be modified to allow the greatest amount of peace and freedom while retaining national sovereignty.
• Some taxation happens without consent, therefore all taxes collected should be through voluntary means as much as possible.
• Governments abuse their power, therefore government should be whittled down to its core responsibilities of rights and property protection, contract enforcement and, if necessary, protecting third parties from external threats. 

Perhaps I am just being a contrarian to the contrarians, a heretic against heretics.  I don't believe so as I am more interested in things that work, rather than intellectual and argumentative purity.   It might be less heroic, but it gets much more done.

And Now a Little Common Sense

Some 2nd Amendment Insight

As "Dirty" Harry Callahan would say, "A man's got to know his limitations."   I do, so I rely on those professionals who know more than me on particular matters to better articulate many of the cases for liberty, and if not, mine them for accurate data. 

Please check out this link by R. Tamara de Silva, a woman whom I not only highly respect in matters of law, but she is also a dog lover, much like yours truly. 

Ten Truths

I would like state ten truths as determined by overwhelming evidence. 

1. Biological evolution is a fact.  It actually happened and continues to happen.  Or, the Flintstones is not a documentary.
2. 19 Arab Terrorists hijacked the planes which destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon.  Or, 9/11 was an "outside" job.
3. The British Royal Family is not made up of reptilian aliens nor will they spawn the antichrist.  Or, David Icke is crazy and so are his followers.
4. Pre-Industrial people, with plenty of exercise, organic food and time outdoors did not live nearly as long as people today and suffered much higher infant mortality rates.  Or, modern living, including "Big Pharma" isn't poisoning us.
5. Slavery, in one form or another, has existed in most cultures at some point in time and continued for thousands of years until the industrial revolution. Or, machines freed mankind.
6. Older generations have criticized the younger generation's choice in music for thousands of years.  Or, what your parents said to you about your music, their parents said to them and you will say to your kids.
7. Guy Fawkes was not a freedom fighter.  Fawkes was a religious extremist who wanted to install a Catholic Monarchy in England through an act of mass assassination.  Or, just because one side of a conflict is unjust does not mean the solutions proposed by the other side are any more just and can in fact be worse.
8. Science is not a moral or political system. It is a process for determining material, demonstrable facts. Or, Bill Nye should stick to science. He is terrible on the other matters.
9. There is no dark cabal under the banner of the New World Order which seeks to covertly take over the world. Or, stop blaming the Jews and everything else for problems you don't understand.
10. The world will not end on December 23rd, 2012.  Or, yes, the Mayans were good at math, but they also thought human blood was needed to satisfy the thirst of the Gods. 

Unions In Decline

Michigan's legislature approved two "Right-To-Work" bills aimed at curtailing compulsory Union dues.  For Michigan, it may well be too little, too late to have any sort of positive economic impact, but it is still a victory for freedom and common sense.

When an employee joins a company, the contract is between them.  Any external interference, including on the part of the government, which attempts to alter the otherwise mutually agreed upon terms is a restriction on freedom on both the employer and employee.  In other words, people should be left to enter their own contracts on their own volition.

Union leaders must ask themselves that if what they offer is so great, why must people be forced to pay for it?  Their counter argument is that employees who do not pay union dues will "free load" and benefit from what the Union has fought for without paying for it.   This is absurd because anyone, unionized or not, benefits from the previous improvements made prior to that employee joining said company, they are not expected to pay for them.  The exchange is work for pay, not pay for improvements already made.  If a future pay dispute arises which affects the union, the non-union member can be excluded from the process and the benefit, if there is one; that is the right of the Union as an organization.  

Unions are desperate because they are becoming obsolete.  Union membership has been on a steep decline since the 1940s and now, not surprisingly, Public Employee Union membership outnumbers Private Employee Union membership.       

Some of the above graph has been interpolated, but the overall trend is clear.  Union proponents will argue that this correlates with stagnant wages, or a smaller percentage of overall wealth for the "middle class".    These are both largely myths, based on looking at incomplete or misleading statistics, rather than individuals.

There are a number of reasons for the decline in Union membership.  For one, machines have replaced men in many of the dangerous positions, so there is less motivation to seek Union protection.  Secondly, people are no longer satisfied with working the same job for life, as they once did generations ago.  People want to move upward and occasionally, move into other industries.  Unions are not flexible in this way; they are designed to protect a bloc of people in a specific field, not a bunch of dynamic individuals who are constantly changing position, rank, and pay.   Another reason people have been shying away is that Unions tend to contribute to political parties, this turns off a lot of potential members, particularly when the dues paid are compulsory.    Lastly, because people are much more mobile, employers are more likely to offer pay and benefits that compete with what a Union would offer, but without the headaches of Union dues and regulations. 

Unions are an endangered species.  If they want to survive, they will have to evolve to better serve their members and stop relying on force* and intimidation to collect money.

More here from my favorite economist and advocate for freedom, Milton Friedman.

*Edit; I want to mention with regards to the clip featuring Steven Crowder; I often disagree with Crowder on a number of key issues including the Drug War and Gay Marriage (or Marriage Equality, if you prefer).  Despite these disagreements, the video speaks for itself and, I believe, displays all-to-typical Union thuggery.  No one, not even Crowder, deserves to be punched for having a different opinion, it just so happens Crowder is right on this particular issue.

Consequences

A few days ago I wrote about conspiracy theories, how they are generally untrue, and are actually counter-productive to the liberty movement.   I mentioned the Anti-Vaccine crowd; a particularly paranoid if not grossly misinformed group of people. 

My apologies, dear reader.  It seems I neglected to mention that adherence to conspiracy theories and other forms of junk science can actually be harmful to your health. 

Forbes reported a few months ago; "Anti-Vaccine Movement Causes The Worst Whooping Cough Epidemic In 70 Years".    

Note the location, the comparatively left-wing Washington State. Who says it is only right-wingers who are against science?   This is not new or uniquely American either.  For example, late author Christopher Hitchens detailed in his 2007 Book "God Is Not Great" that in Northern Nigeria polio made a return and spread after an Islamic Fatwah was issued declaring that the polio vaccine was a conspiracy against the Islamic faith.  Similar pattern emerged in 2010 Vancouver with measles. 

 In every case, the Anti-Vaccination crowd ought to be ashamed because they are putting their paranoia ahead of the health of their children.  

More here. 

Right back at ya' sister.

 

Not Again, CNN! Pt. 2

CNN is a favorite whipping boy of mine, not merely because it is often a terrible news organization (which it is) but also because it is a reflection of a certain segment of society.  So it is fair to say that many criticisms I make against CNN, I do so only to address a wider audience, and they know who they are.

Today we have the umpteenth article on Race.  This one entitled  "What it means to be black"and the article goes on to describe the "black experience" through the lens of a handful of people of varying degrees of skin tone who had participated in a project called "(1)ne Drop" about non-obvious black identity by "Scholar" Yaba Blay.   Scholar of what?  The article does not say.   The article begins; 

"What is black? Race. Culture. Consciousness. History. Heritage.
A shade darker than brown? The opposite of white?
Who is black? In America, being black has meant having African ancestry.
But not everyone fits neatly into a prototypical model of "blackness."

 First of all, this is factually incorrect.  Typical North Africans, such as Egyptians, Tunisians and Berbers are not "black".   Secondly, everyone is descended from Africa since that is where mankind evolved.  Thirdly, Australian Aboriginals and East Indians, living in America can often have a very dark complexion and can self-identify as "black", but not of more recent Sub-Saharan heritage.  This might be uncommon, but it is nevertheless true. 

The rest of the piece is meaningless drivel about how, and to some degree why, the people in question choose to self-identify as black.    Of course, no two people are going to be alike and everyone is going to have a different perspective, but that isn't really the problem.  

The problem with the piece is that it is racist.  What is racism?  Holding one race to a different set of standards as another.  

Now imagine for a moment, CNN put out an article on "What it means to be white".   Imagine the furor this would provoke.   Imagine the outrage if there was a project called "Wh1te Nation; Opening a dialog about being white in America" on which the article was based.      Or simply imagine an article about those who are of mixed race, but for whatever reason want to be identified as something other than black.   One of the testimonies touches on this;

California author Kathleen Cross, 50, remembers taking a public bus ride with her father when she was 8. Her father was noticeably uncomfortable that black kids in the back were acting rowdy. He muttered under his breath: "Making us look bad."  She understood her father was ashamed of those black kids, that he fancied himself not one of them. "My father was escaping blackness," she says. "He didn’t like for me to have dark-skinned friends. He never said it. But I know."

She asked him once if she had ancestors from Africa. He got quiet. Then, he said: "Maybe, Northern Africa.   He wasn't proud of being black," she says.

Note the subtle casting of the father as being ignorant at best or a self-hating villain at worst.  But if the story is reported accurately, he was not escaping "blackness", (a term which is impossible to universally define), it is clear from the context that he was escaping from unpleasant elements. Namely, rowdy kids.   Of course we cannot read his mind, but I would wager he wouldn't want his daughter to have light-skinned friends who acted rowdy either.   But even if that wasn't the case and he really did harbor some exclusively bad feelings about his own race, then that too is part of the "black experience"; his own.  No more or less valid than anyone else.   But such would not make good press.  At CNN and in popular culture, only white Americans are allowed to be disgusted with their own race and only non-whites are allowed to take pride in their race.  Black especially.  Asians, Aleuts, Pacific Islanders...meh...not so much.  Of course black people can joke about killing white people...that's funny.  The reverse?  That's racism...according to the zeitgeist.

There is another problem about this style of "racial dialog".  Very often, when discussing racial identity in anything other than a purely clinical sense, the specter of racism and racial discrimination is raised with great emotional fire.  This is not without some justification; racism is an ugly and real thing and it causes real problems, sometimes deadly serious problems.  But the testimonies given imply that identifying as black, for whatever reason, is part of being a strong, confident person who has overcome the stereotypes imposed by society.   But herein lies the rub; one cannot escape racial stereotypes if one constantly harps on and on about their own racial experience (not to mention creating a whole project dedicated to the matter), because not letting the subject go is a racial stereotype, and in my opinion, one of weakness.  That is to say, someone who is supremely confident doesn't need to identify their race, they simply let their own individual accomplishments and virtues speak for themselves.     Besides, no one is ever going to accept another as "an equal", if they never shut up about not being equal, or for being misunderstood, or being unfairly categorized.  One cannot have it both ways; to be seen as misunderstood victims in one sense or another and as political equals at the same time.   One or the other. Pick one and move on. 

Lastly, apart from some medical considerations, racial heritage shouldn't matter.    Dr. King said that that he dreamed of a world where people are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.  I cannot be 100% certain, but I am pretty sure "content of character" does not mean the entire past history of one's race, but rather refers to the individual and their own feelings and actions.  

One might object, "You don't understand!  You don't know what it's like to be black!"  True, I'm not black (African descended, yes.  If one traces back far enough, but not black in any classic definitions) But the reverse is also true;  most black people in America don't know or understand what it is like to be a black in Africa.  They don't know what it's like to be me, either. They don't know what it feels like to be held accountable for crimes that occurred before my great grand parents were born, or to be accused of racism when I advocate for individualism instead of largely nebulous, collectivist and intentionally provocative labels.     CNN should stop putting out articles on racial identity (again, something no one can fully agree upon anyway) and focus on individuals.