New location: http://nortaneous.posterous.com/
Originally made it for shorter posts, but I don't like Google all that much anymore, especially after the massive Blogspot clusterfuck a while back, so there you go. Might port my articles from this over there eventually, possibly including some of the ones from before I had to wipe it.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Some minor news things
It appears that I have now basically gotten my life together. The circumstances that almost completely prevented me from writing for the past year are gone, and have been replaced with a different set of circumstances, most of which involve my enrollment in college. Now that I no longer have to tolerate the soul-sucking factory farm that is community college, I have the time and ability to write, but I am enrolled in four political science courses (Latin American Development; Law, Morality, and Cinema; Constitutional Law; and, thanks to the system of prerequisites, Intro to Political Science) so who knows if I'll be motivated to write beyond what I'll have to write for class. I'm hoping I will, but I don't want to burn myself out now that I've found a field that I'm actually interested in entering.
Another one of those circumstances is that I've gone off and gotten myself back into Lemmings level design. I'm considering opening another blog for non-political projects, so details might be posted there.
Also, I have a Twitter now. I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to do with it besides link to things, make bad jokes, and dump ideas when I'm not feeling productive enough to flesh them out into full articles, so follow it if you're into that sort of thing, I guess. Or not; it's doubtful that anything of any importance or relevance will be there.
Another one of those circumstances is that I've gone off and gotten myself back into Lemmings level design. I'm considering opening another blog for non-political projects, so details might be posted there.
Also, I have a Twitter now. I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to do with it besides link to things, make bad jokes, and dump ideas when I'm not feeling productive enough to flesh them out into full articles, so follow it if you're into that sort of thing, I guess. Or not; it's doubtful that anything of any importance or relevance will be there.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Jared Lee Loughner and the Liberal Media
This is starting to look like it could be another Joe Stack case.
What do we know right now? What information do we have on him? Practically nothing besides his Youtube account and screenshots of his Myspace page.
Yes, he lists Animal Farm and We The Living, both well-known anti-Soviet novels, but he also lists The Communist Manifesto. Why would a right-wing lunatic acting on a tendency to violence "encoded in conservative DNA" show such support for communism? And why would someone who is agnostic at the very least be so influenced by the Tea Party's rhetoric, which has a significant Christian element?
And look at the Myspace page screenshots. Notice the vague rants about how "the fucking pigs are genociding". "I know your brainwashed to love them fuckin cops", he wrote. Does this sound at all like the rhetoric of a right-wing authoritarian? I thought the Tea Party wanted more police presence, at least according to the left! Can't they make up their minds? And why would someone influenced to murder by the generally patriotic Tea Party burn a flag?
Why blame right-wing rhetoric at all, for that matter? He read the Communist Manifesto and liked it enough to list it as one of his favorite books. Doesn't that contain violent rhetoric far more explicit than anything to come out of the Tea Party?
We really don't have all that much information yet, but the information that we do have doesn't support the position that many in the media are pushing: that Loughner was influenced by Sarah Palin, American Renaissance (a relatively well-known white nationalist magazine), and "right-wing rhetoric". There is no reason to claim that Loughner will "inevitably" be linked to the far right, since, contrary to the claims of the liberal media, the "tone of Loughner's rantings" is not "almost exclusively conservative". So let's not jump to conclusions.
What do we know right now? What information do we have on him? Practically nothing besides his Youtube account and screenshots of his Myspace page.
Yes, he lists Animal Farm and We The Living, both well-known anti-Soviet novels, but he also lists The Communist Manifesto. Why would a right-wing lunatic acting on a tendency to violence "encoded in conservative DNA" show such support for communism? And why would someone who is agnostic at the very least be so influenced by the Tea Party's rhetoric, which has a significant Christian element?
And look at the Myspace page screenshots. Notice the vague rants about how "the fucking pigs are genociding". "I know your brainwashed to love them fuckin cops", he wrote. Does this sound at all like the rhetoric of a right-wing authoritarian? I thought the Tea Party wanted more police presence, at least according to the left! Can't they make up their minds? And why would someone influenced to murder by the generally patriotic Tea Party burn a flag?
Why blame right-wing rhetoric at all, for that matter? He read the Communist Manifesto and liked it enough to list it as one of his favorite books. Doesn't that contain violent rhetoric far more explicit than anything to come out of the Tea Party?
We really don't have all that much information yet, but the information that we do have doesn't support the position that many in the media are pushing: that Loughner was influenced by Sarah Palin, American Renaissance (a relatively well-known white nationalist magazine), and "right-wing rhetoric". There is no reason to claim that Loughner will "inevitably" be linked to the far right, since, contrary to the claims of the liberal media, the "tone of Loughner's rantings" is not "almost exclusively conservative". So let's not jump to conclusions.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The underrepresentation of libertarians in American politics
This Politico article could very well be the first article I've read from a major political news site about the usually overlooked, and rapidly growing, libertarian force in American politics. One would think that the ideology that influenced the Tea Party movement right from its beginning, helped a Republican win in Massachusetts, and will most likely lead to not only more Republican wins in previously Democratic areas, but also a change in the platform of the Republican Party, would receive much more coverage than it does. And yet, defying all logic, it doesn't. Why is that?
Liberals paint libertarians as conservatives. Libertarians are ideologically nowhere near conservatives, but liberals attempt to drive libertarians away from libertarian movements such as the Tea Party by any means they possibly can. According to the liberal media, the Tea Party is a racist, homophobic militia of authoritarians, conspiracy theorists, and brainwashed elitists caught in the past. Now compare that to reality. The Tea Party supports Ron Paul about as much as they support Palin, fight dependence on the federal government (which "closet authoritarians" definitely wouldn't do; after all, economic dependence on the government is a rather consistent characteristic of authoritarian governments), and have a completely libertarian platform:
* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets
Is the left trying to say that the Constitution is authoritarian or racist? Or do they just consider that platform to be a cover for racist redneck bible-thumpers, perhaps backed by the Illuminati? That conspiracy theory is just projection; just because certain parts of the left play dirty doesn't mean everyone does.
Polls don't count libertarians. Gallup provides three terms in its polls: conservative, moderate, and liberal. Considering the fact that American policy on social issues moves consistently left, does it make sense to say that conservatives are the largest ideological group in the USA, twice as large as liberals? Of course not! Especially if right-wing extremism is as prevalent as the liberals think it is, since that would push the Overton window to the right, and make more conservatives identify as moderates, and more moderates identify as liberals. One possible reason for this, and the one that I think is most probable, is that, when forced to choose between one of those three terms, libertarians will tend to choose "conservative". Almost all of the people I know who call themselves conservatives are libertarians, and almost all of the libertarians I know will identify as conservative.
"Libertarian" is a fringe term. I've heard it said many times that someone who doesn't oppose all taxes, all government regulation of businesses, all public services besides law enforcement and the military, and so on isn't a "true libertarian". Libertarianism is commonly defined as anarcho-capitalism, so libertarians are driven away from the term. I've also heard it said that anyone who supports a policy with "insufficient" philosophical justification, just because it works, isn't a "true libertarian". Again, that's absurd. Libertarianism does not require withdrawal from reality.
Well, that's only one part of the problem. Here's the important part: how do we know they're out there? It doesn't matter how discouraged libertarians would be from identifying as libertarians if there are no libertarians! But their existence is obvious.
The Tea Party is becoming mainstream. A recent poll found that a majority of voters think the Tea Party has a better understanding than Congress does of the issues facing America, and 47% agree more politically with the Tea Party than with Congress. (Let's not forget that Congress is elected, so in theory, people should agree with them at a much higher rate than they do. However, there's a liberal (well, progressive) party and a conservative party, but no notable libertarian party.)
Sales of Atlas Shrugged are high and increasing. Sales hit higher than ever before in 2008 and doubled in 2009. And the more people who buy books that advocate libertarianism, the more libertarians there probably are.
People don't trust big government, and want it to shrink. Almost 80 percent of Americans don't trust the government, and lack of trust in government leads naturally to libertarianism. Both progressivism (D) and neoconservatism (R) require trusting the government to provide services for the poor and enforce a certain social and ethical ideology. (Okay, I'm not sure if welfare is part of the neocon platform, but the point still stands even if it isn't.) And about half of Americans would prefer a smaller government that provides fewer services.
Ron Paul won the 2010 CPAC poll. This should explain itself.
So yes, libertarians are out there; Politico estimates that 14-23% of American voters are libertarians, and that number is probably too low, for the reasons I listed above. I'd guess that their numbers will continue to grow, and, as people who have paid attention to me on Facebook know, I'm pretty damn good at guessing this sort of thing.
Liberals paint libertarians as conservatives. Libertarians are ideologically nowhere near conservatives, but liberals attempt to drive libertarians away from libertarian movements such as the Tea Party by any means they possibly can. According to the liberal media, the Tea Party is a racist, homophobic militia of authoritarians, conspiracy theorists, and brainwashed elitists caught in the past. Now compare that to reality. The Tea Party supports Ron Paul about as much as they support Palin, fight dependence on the federal government (which "closet authoritarians" definitely wouldn't do; after all, economic dependence on the government is a rather consistent characteristic of authoritarian governments), and have a completely libertarian platform:
* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets
Is the left trying to say that the Constitution is authoritarian or racist? Or do they just consider that platform to be a cover for racist redneck bible-thumpers, perhaps backed by the Illuminati? That conspiracy theory is just projection; just because certain parts of the left play dirty doesn't mean everyone does.
Polls don't count libertarians. Gallup provides three terms in its polls: conservative, moderate, and liberal. Considering the fact that American policy on social issues moves consistently left, does it make sense to say that conservatives are the largest ideological group in the USA, twice as large as liberals? Of course not! Especially if right-wing extremism is as prevalent as the liberals think it is, since that would push the Overton window to the right, and make more conservatives identify as moderates, and more moderates identify as liberals. One possible reason for this, and the one that I think is most probable, is that, when forced to choose between one of those three terms, libertarians will tend to choose "conservative". Almost all of the people I know who call themselves conservatives are libertarians, and almost all of the libertarians I know will identify as conservative.
"Libertarian" is a fringe term. I've heard it said many times that someone who doesn't oppose all taxes, all government regulation of businesses, all public services besides law enforcement and the military, and so on isn't a "true libertarian". Libertarianism is commonly defined as anarcho-capitalism, so libertarians are driven away from the term. I've also heard it said that anyone who supports a policy with "insufficient" philosophical justification, just because it works, isn't a "true libertarian". Again, that's absurd. Libertarianism does not require withdrawal from reality.
Well, that's only one part of the problem. Here's the important part: how do we know they're out there? It doesn't matter how discouraged libertarians would be from identifying as libertarians if there are no libertarians! But their existence is obvious.
The Tea Party is becoming mainstream. A recent poll found that a majority of voters think the Tea Party has a better understanding than Congress does of the issues facing America, and 47% agree more politically with the Tea Party than with Congress. (Let's not forget that Congress is elected, so in theory, people should agree with them at a much higher rate than they do. However, there's a liberal (well, progressive) party and a conservative party, but no notable libertarian party.)
Sales of Atlas Shrugged are high and increasing. Sales hit higher than ever before in 2008 and doubled in 2009. And the more people who buy books that advocate libertarianism, the more libertarians there probably are.
People don't trust big government, and want it to shrink. Almost 80 percent of Americans don't trust the government, and lack of trust in government leads naturally to libertarianism. Both progressivism (D) and neoconservatism (R) require trusting the government to provide services for the poor and enforce a certain social and ethical ideology. (Okay, I'm not sure if welfare is part of the neocon platform, but the point still stands even if it isn't.) And about half of Americans would prefer a smaller government that provides fewer services.
Ron Paul won the 2010 CPAC poll. This should explain itself.
So yes, libertarians are out there; Politico estimates that 14-23% of American voters are libertarians, and that number is probably too low, for the reasons I listed above. I'd guess that their numbers will continue to grow, and, as people who have paid attention to me on Facebook know, I'm pretty damn good at guessing this sort of thing.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The problem here
The problem with one world government is that it leaves nowhere to run.
The same problem exists with one world attitude toward government. That's what the House has led us to. We have followed blindly in the steps of Europe, unaware of the cliff at the end of the path. Big government, high taxes, and enslavement of the best of the producers to the worst of the consumers. And what else is out there in the developed world?
We have clearly forgotten the reasons for our fight for independence from Britain. But at least back then, our side had somewhere to run. Not anymore; they have all the land. And it's a lot harder to fight evil in Hell.
The same problem exists with one world attitude toward government. That's what the House has led us to. We have followed blindly in the steps of Europe, unaware of the cliff at the end of the path. Big government, high taxes, and enslavement of the best of the producers to the worst of the consumers. And what else is out there in the developed world?
We have clearly forgotten the reasons for our fight for independence from Britain. But at least back then, our side had somewhere to run. Not anymore; they have all the land. And it's a lot harder to fight evil in Hell.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The musician
Note: Supposedly, something like this happened on Rush Limbaugh's radio show a while back. I'm too lazy to verify it though.
Once upon a time, there was a very successful musician who wrote about average American people. He occasionally left his phone lines open, so fans could call in with stories that could provide inspiration. One day, however, a caller complained that if he really cared about average Americans, he should donate to charity instead of hoarding his money so other people could have a chance of becoming as successful as him, and he, with his $5 million of earnings a year, couldn't rightfully claim to know anything about average Americans,
The musician replied, "$5 million? What an insult! I haven't made $10 million in decades!"
So the caller guessed, "Well, $2 million then. You still don't understand average people."
"Now I'm even more insulted! $2 million? Absurd!"
"...$1 million?"
So the musician replied, "No, you idiot! I make $20 million! And I never needed a dime of charity to get there!"
A liberal friend once told me that she thought conservatives and libertarians couldn't understand failure. I replied that liberals can't understand success.
Once upon a time, there was a very successful musician who wrote about average American people. He occasionally left his phone lines open, so fans could call in with stories that could provide inspiration. One day, however, a caller complained that if he really cared about average Americans, he should donate to charity instead of hoarding his money so other people could have a chance of becoming as successful as him, and he, with his $5 million of earnings a year, couldn't rightfully claim to know anything about average Americans,
The musician replied, "$5 million? What an insult! I haven't made $10 million in decades!"
So the caller guessed, "Well, $2 million then. You still don't understand average people."
"Now I'm even more insulted! $2 million? Absurd!"
"...$1 million?"
So the musician replied, "No, you idiot! I make $20 million! And I never needed a dime of charity to get there!"
A liberal friend once told me that she thought conservatives and libertarians couldn't understand failure. I replied that liberals can't understand success.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Mental disorders, authority, and culture
Note: This started as a response to a question on Formspring. If it's more incoherent than usual, that might be why.
I've been told many times that I have mental problems, and I should see a doctor.
First, the doctors... I've seen doctors. A lot of doctors. None of them have helped my life, and some have made things worse. Some said that my "mental problems" come from the fact that I won't follow people who can't lead, and tried to convince me to be led off a cliff; some said that they come from having too much free time, and tried to convince me to constantly distract myself with meaningless timewasters; and some said that they come because I think too much, and tried to get me on medication to make me stop thinking, or even caring about my life.
Hell, I was in special ed for seven years. That was supposed to help. It did, but not in the way they intended; instead of teaching me that I should keep my head down, accept whatever is handed to me, and never try for anything better, it taught me that authority doesn't always know best, and that the worst kind of authority is the kind that thinks it does. An important lesson in philosophy, but a horrible lesson in the real world... and I think it says a lot that the two are so opposed.
Now on to the mental disorders. What mental disorders do I exhibit signs of? First, what is a mental disorder? The National Library of Medicine defines the term as "psychiatric illness or diseases manifested by breakdowns in the adaptational process expressed primarily as abnormalities of thought, feeling, and behavior producing either distress or impairment of function." Or, to put it more simply: you have one if you're not acting on consensus reality or consensus values.
Consider this thought experiment: A baby is born in a rather barbaric country. The most obvious sign of its barbarism is its practice of ritually applying a chemical that causes temporary blindness to the eyes of its citizens, beginning in early childhood. But, somehow (genetic resistance, whatever), this particular baby escapes the effects of the chemical. He (English is an Indo-European language; therefore, the default gender is masculine. Deal with it. If you don't like this explanation, assume I'm borrowing it from Latin, just like the grammarians who constructed most of the rules of modern written English did to get their rules.) doesn't realize at first that he is any different from everyone else, but as time passes, he starts noticing problems that he considers obvious, but when he points them out to others, they ridicule him, and call him insane. He is sent to the town shaman, who tries to explain that his "sight" is an illusion and should be ignored for the good of himself and others; no matter how many times he explains to the shaman how much better off people would be if they could see, or at least listen to the people who can, the shaman refuses to even consider his ideas. He is then sent to another shaman, who forces him to perform tasks designed to help people with a bad sense of touch, or no skill with a cane, and beats his head against a wall, hoping that he can beat this "sight" out of him, or at least shut him up. When this fails, he is sent to a third shaman, who assumes that this sight of his must be causing him pain, and offers him medicine to make his eyes deteriorate, but he refuses, saying that the only thing that has caused him pain is others' inability to recognize that his 'condition' is not harmful, and that he prefers his sight, even with the abuse that he takes for it, to no abuse and no sight. This shaman throws up his hands, announces that he is a hopeless case, and sends him on to a fourth shaman, who pronounces him unfit for society. He then attempts to get an education, but his teachers and fellow students expect him to accept premises that he can see are false. They do not even recognize these as premises; they see them as irrefutable truths, refuse to even accept the possibility that they may not be right, and assume that anyone who does is an enemy of the school, the students, and even the state itself. He attempts to explain that, if they would allow themselves to see, they could see these things for themselves, but they consider the concept of sight to be so evil that he is silenced and, eventually, driven out.
Who is insane: the man, or the society he lives in? By the NLM's definition, the man is insane, because he doesn't act on the consensus reality and values of his society; however, it is clear that the consensus reality is incomplete (no sight) the consensus values are defective (any deviation is evil, even if it patches some of the holes in the consensus reality), and these problems cause distress to (they fall into holes that they can't see), and impaired function in (their philosophy and society rest on illogical and false assumptions) the members of society.
Has this previously great society collapsed to the point where "thinking a lot" constitutes a mental problem? If so, then yes, I'll admit that I have one. But I'll take that over willful ignorance, just like the seeing man chose to keep his sight.
I've been told many times that I have mental problems, and I should see a doctor.
First, the doctors... I've seen doctors. A lot of doctors. None of them have helped my life, and some have made things worse. Some said that my "mental problems" come from the fact that I won't follow people who can't lead, and tried to convince me to be led off a cliff; some said that they come from having too much free time, and tried to convince me to constantly distract myself with meaningless timewasters; and some said that they come because I think too much, and tried to get me on medication to make me stop thinking, or even caring about my life.
Hell, I was in special ed for seven years. That was supposed to help. It did, but not in the way they intended; instead of teaching me that I should keep my head down, accept whatever is handed to me, and never try for anything better, it taught me that authority doesn't always know best, and that the worst kind of authority is the kind that thinks it does. An important lesson in philosophy, but a horrible lesson in the real world... and I think it says a lot that the two are so opposed.
Now on to the mental disorders. What mental disorders do I exhibit signs of? First, what is a mental disorder? The National Library of Medicine defines the term as "psychiatric illness or diseases manifested by breakdowns in the adaptational process expressed primarily as abnormalities of thought, feeling, and behavior producing either distress or impairment of function." Or, to put it more simply: you have one if you're not acting on consensus reality or consensus values.
Consider this thought experiment: A baby is born in a rather barbaric country. The most obvious sign of its barbarism is its practice of ritually applying a chemical that causes temporary blindness to the eyes of its citizens, beginning in early childhood. But, somehow (genetic resistance, whatever), this particular baby escapes the effects of the chemical. He (English is an Indo-European language; therefore, the default gender is masculine. Deal with it. If you don't like this explanation, assume I'm borrowing it from Latin, just like the grammarians who constructed most of the rules of modern written English did to get their rules.) doesn't realize at first that he is any different from everyone else, but as time passes, he starts noticing problems that he considers obvious, but when he points them out to others, they ridicule him, and call him insane. He is sent to the town shaman, who tries to explain that his "sight" is an illusion and should be ignored for the good of himself and others; no matter how many times he explains to the shaman how much better off people would be if they could see, or at least listen to the people who can, the shaman refuses to even consider his ideas. He is then sent to another shaman, who forces him to perform tasks designed to help people with a bad sense of touch, or no skill with a cane, and beats his head against a wall, hoping that he can beat this "sight" out of him, or at least shut him up. When this fails, he is sent to a third shaman, who assumes that this sight of his must be causing him pain, and offers him medicine to make his eyes deteriorate, but he refuses, saying that the only thing that has caused him pain is others' inability to recognize that his 'condition' is not harmful, and that he prefers his sight, even with the abuse that he takes for it, to no abuse and no sight. This shaman throws up his hands, announces that he is a hopeless case, and sends him on to a fourth shaman, who pronounces him unfit for society. He then attempts to get an education, but his teachers and fellow students expect him to accept premises that he can see are false. They do not even recognize these as premises; they see them as irrefutable truths, refuse to even accept the possibility that they may not be right, and assume that anyone who does is an enemy of the school, the students, and even the state itself. He attempts to explain that, if they would allow themselves to see, they could see these things for themselves, but they consider the concept of sight to be so evil that he is silenced and, eventually, driven out.
Who is insane: the man, or the society he lives in? By the NLM's definition, the man is insane, because he doesn't act on the consensus reality and values of his society; however, it is clear that the consensus reality is incomplete (no sight) the consensus values are defective (any deviation is evil, even if it patches some of the holes in the consensus reality), and these problems cause distress to (they fall into holes that they can't see), and impaired function in (their philosophy and society rest on illogical and false assumptions) the members of society.
Has this previously great society collapsed to the point where "thinking a lot" constitutes a mental problem? If so, then yes, I'll admit that I have one. But I'll take that over willful ignorance, just like the seeing man chose to keep his sight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
