Link Salad

Dec. 7th, 2011 11:01 am
chris_gerrib: (Default)
Because why not?

1) Roger Ebert nicely encapsulates my current thinking on the Occupy Wall Street movement.

2) So, according to this British newspaper, NASA is working on a nuclear rocket. In space, faster is always better.

3) For science-fiction convention-goers everywhere, the fan and pro Bill of Rights.

4) From [livejournal.com profile] jaylake, apparently infections can cause mental illness.

5) Also from Mr. Lake, a subject close to my left-handed heart, the health risks of being left-handed.
chris_gerrib: (Default)
So, I've said several times that I found the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement as illogical as the Tea Party movement. After reading Jim Wright's rather lengthy thoughts on the subject, I think "uneasy" is a better word. Maybe "problematic." Here's some more specific thoughts:

1) I sympathize with the OWS movement. Income inequality is real, and it certainly appears that "the fix is in" - wealthy corporations get bailed out while everybody else gets the shaft.

2) As Jim says, "OWS is opposed to unfettered business, the Tea Party opposes unfettered government. The Occupiers want business out of government, the Tea Partiers want government out of business. These things may appear similar but they are in reality Yin and Yang. The only workable way for OWS to achieve its stated goal of reining in capitalism is through more government. The only way for the Tea Party to achieve its stated goal is less government."

3) Unfettered capitalism sucks unless you're really rich - see the Gilded Age for that.

4) Where OWS is falling down is exactly where the Tea Party is most effective.
The Tea Party is trying to use the political process (AKA, "voting") to effect their changes, while the OWS movement is using unfocused protests. Unfocused protests tend to become riots, because they are unfocused.

The OWS movement needs to take a page from the Tea Party manual - focus on voting and political action, not hanging out at the park.
chris_gerrib: (Default)
Since yesterday's two-fer seemed to work so well:

1) I've expressed my approval at Obama's decision to pull out of Iraq. Well, Jim Wright, who was present at the very first shot of the current war, also approves. It's his blog, so he does so at length, but he asks a question for Republicans. "As president, how would you define victory in Iraq?

2) The Occupy Wall Street crowd has all of the same problems with logic that the Tea Party does. It is, however, interesting to compare and contrast the treatment the two groups have received.

chris_gerrib: (Default)
Like the title says:

A) To nobody's surprise, Herman Cain's 999 Plan raises taxes on all but the very richest (see graph below) They get a tax cut. This is SOP from the Republicans - Cain's just got a catchy marketing phrase to sell it.



B) I think the Occupy Wall Street crowd is in many ways as illogical as the Tea Partiers, but here's what they are upset about. (Hint: Massive income inequalities and unemployment while corporate CEO wages and profits are skyrocketing.)

C) From E. J. Dionne, a defense of liberal's tax views. Liberals believe that the wealthy should pay more in taxes than “the rest of us” because the well-off have benefited the most from our social arrangements. This has nothing to do with treating citizens as if they were cows incapable of self-government. As for the regulatory state, our free and fully competent citizens have long endorsed a role for government in protecting consumers from dangerous products, including tainted beef
chris_gerrib: (Default)
So, the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) movement is getting some mainstream media attention. I'm not sure I agree with the protesters (they look to me like they took logical thinking classes from the Tea Party) but with unemployment at 9.1%, protests are certainly understandable. At any rate, the OWS movement has drawn fire from people like Eric Cantor to Herman Cain who call it "class warfare." Well, as David Brin points out, class warfare has been going on since at least the invention of agriculture.

Personally, I don't get upset about a little class warfare. I've used the predator and prey analogy before, and I think it fits in this case. The prey not only has no obligation to go down quietly, it's better for everybody, including the predator, if they fight as hard as possible. The goal of democracy is not to prevent strife, but to prevent violent strife.

At any rate, Brin, in his somewhat rambling post, notes that the American Founding Fathers decided that part of the democratic solution was to ban primogeniture. Primogeniture is the practice of automatically and by default giving all property and wealth to the eldest son, and folks like Thomas Jefferson were dead-set against it. What they sought to avoid was the concentration of wealth and power that resulted from primogeniture - a concentration that led to the French Revolution, among other evils.

In short, the Founding Fathers engaged in pre-emptive class warfare. This warfare was continued by other means, from the estate tax to various workers rights and industrial safety laws. The bottom line is that we've always had class warfare in America and always will.
chris_gerrib: (Default)
So, according to yet another poll, the idea of taxing millionaires more is supported by 64% of Americans. Yet, it appears that idea will not even get a serious hearing in Congress, let alone become law.

On January 20, 1920, the United States prohibited the 'manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors' in the United States. Although amending the Constitution requires a great deal of effort, it's not clear to me that a majority of Americans thought that this was a good idea. From watching Ken Burn's new documentary, by 1924 its reasonably clear that a majority of Americans thought that Prohibition was a bad idea. Yet the law held until 1932.

There is a common thread in both these events; namely that a motivated and active minority can override a less-motivated or less-active majority. Some of this is by design - the American system of government is designed to have lots of roadblocks as a means of preventing one faction from gaining too much power. But this is not peculiar to the American system of government - dictators throughout history use this fact to gain and hold power. Obviously, in the case of dictatorship, the "active" minority is willing to use force to seize and hold power, which makes them both more effective and less moral, but even in a peaceful democracy, the process can be hijacked by a minority.

Nor is this phenomenon unique to these two events - American history is full of similar examples, most notably slavery. I don't have a prescription to fix the problem, but when evaluating the performance of politicians, it's a problem worth understanding.

Profile

chris_gerrib: (Default)
chris_gerrib

May 2026

S M T W T F S
      12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 3rd, 2026 07:26 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios