The Fiends in Human Shape Y.D.A.U. Tour

On the Elites

2008-02-01T12:41:00.000-08:00

"Let them eat Cake" - Marie Antoinette

I am a long time proponent of free market capitalism. I think it's been the primary driving force for most of humanity's progress over its history. The benefits of free trade are impossible to ignore. However its also impossible to ignore the simple fact that its a lot easier to be successful in a capitalist system if you have something to trade. Ignoring the fact that regulated markets offer much more entrenched aristocratic classes, its not hard to see that People born into wealth have a significant advantage over those born into poverty, and well, that kind of sucks for the poor child. These wealthy have many opportunities that the impoverished will not. Well how can that gap be closed, or how do these impoverished gain access to the opportunites of the elites?

The route of Capitalism offers an answer to that question. A great example is apparent in Wal-Mart. Often attacked, the simple fact is that if you want to maximize your purchasing power (something poor people want especially) the way to do this is to go to Wal-Mart. The competitive forces in the market empowered Sam Walton to spot an inefficiency in the marketplace (The two biggest he utilizes, smart inventory practices to lower overhead, and elimination of wholesalers/shaking down suppliers) and bring consumers into his store. Of course it doesnt end there, in Wal-Mart each of the products you buy was designed in order to beat out competitors and so are cheaper, better made, and now you can buy more with less. The idea being that $50 worth of Wal-Mart product today, was much more expensive 30 years ago (if you account for quality of the good or even if it existed). Electronics are probably where this is most apparent. Capitalism is making goods cheaper. Its enabling impoverished to purchase goods ordinarily only accesible to richer people. They have an opportunity they wouldnt have otherwise had.

The other route is through gov't mandate. The most obvious way is the gov't creates a wealth redistribution system where the elites help pay for many goods of the impoverished. While the immediate reaction is that this is socialism, maybe it is but maybe its also necessary and that shouldnt be a dirty word. The most obvious example of this marketplace for a good at work is the educational system. We use gov't mandates to force tax payers to pool their resources together (married, rich, poor, with/without children) and pay for a school system to educate young children. At a local public school everyone has access to the same exact schooling no matter how much money your parents have. It gives poor people the opportunity to learn what they probably would not have otherwise. Now many studies have been done to the gross ineffeciencies to the public education system, which hemorages money like crazy, but perhaps the major problem is that those studies fail to take into account the benefits of an educated workforce on the economic system as a whole. What metric can you design to account for the repeated benefits large masses of literate people provide as workers v. the alternative a true free market would provide. Perhaps this is partly responsible for much of the Economic growth a society enjoys, as poor people now are empowered with something which can be traded in the capitalist system. And the untapped potential of many people is realized.

These are gov't policies which essentially regulate the free market, and even though they come with the incredible costs associated with Gov't intervention, I am unsure the benefits are completely accounted for, or even if they can be completely accounted for (like with public road systems, public road systems enable the citizens to trade freely amongst themselves, who knows how much economic growth that has fostered at a great expense?). Taking an all or nothing approach to free market capitalism seems foolish. I am unconvinced that a truly laissez faire free market could cause much of the economic growth we've enjoyed over the past two centuries. The usual libertarian counter to these arguments is that "The government gets credit for every advance the free market provides which it has it hand in. (In other words if the gov't were out of these markets all the benefits would be apparant anyway at a far lesser cost, you just cannot see the alternate history.) I don't see it in these instances.

On Politics as Religion

2008-01-30T21:02:00.000-08:00

"Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses." - H.L. Mencken

This is hardly relevatory I'm guessing, but every time I watch these politicians get on stage this primary season and totally ignore any and all issues of substance, I'm frequently left with the sense that I'm watching religious ceremonies and theological debates. The facts are basically irrelevent (as with religion) as the debate centers on things like values rather than policy. The most obvious example of this is Barack Obama, who I like (how can you not) and gives very moving and passionate speeches about nothing in particular. Everytime I watch him speak I feel like I'm watching Joel Osteen or Tony Robbins (who basically preaches religious dogma) get up and give a moving sermon on the potential in all of us. His power is clear in the faces of his followers who see some sort of salvation in him. Another great example is John Edwards who gave whatever sob stories he could in EVERY FREAKING SPEECH before dropping out. Only instead of finding God (like most religious sob stories), his subjects just lead miserable lives and need to find salvation through the federal government's help.

I am struck even stronger with this feeling when i talk to my mother and I tell her how angry I am with the Republican party for their massive policy failures over the past 6 years. She listens to what I say, agrees, then argues against my point by painting democrats basically as instruments of the devil. They represent a terrible evil of collectivist thought that will bring everyone down in order to ensure the few people who are left behind are on equal footing. Essentially, attacking Republicans is embracing evil. Of course numerous democrats I've conversed with have the same opinion but reversed. These are highly emotional people making irrational arguments because their very religion is at stake, the political party to which they have allegence.

So what values do these people gain from political affliation? Generalization: Democrats value the idea that a healthy society involves care and compassion for those who are unfortunate, Republicans value a society where people are committed to tenets of honor and discipline. If you attack someone's political affliation you are basically attacking a value system on which they have made very important decisions in their life, you are essentially attacking a philosophy which they have returned to in order to guide themselves through tough decisions. AND THAT IS VERY PERSONAL. It's on par with attacking someone's religious beliefs in some sense, at least for the partisans out there.

Why else would everyone waste so much time and energy on something which they have such limited control over? People passionate about politics are so becuase of the moral superiority that comes with it, or the reaffirmation of the values they believe. Why else would political debate get so heated? Do you really care about Bill H.R. 234 that much? It will have limited impact on your life, what matters is the personal connection you have made to the supporters of said bill and the strength they in turn have given you.

On Dear Chicago

2007-09-15T11:48:00.000-07:00

"Dear Chicago, You'll never guess." - Ryan Adams

Dear Chicago by Ryan Adams is the most depressing song I've ever heard, but its beauty cannot be denied. Achingly sad, with a somber sense of defeat, it is brutal but incredibly insightful. I love it. The man is a genius.

On Worship

2007-09-11T23:47:00.000-07:00

"Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship." - David Foster Wallace

So what do I worship? I tried listening to Ayn Rand who promoted the idea of self worship. The idea was fulfilling for only so long. Then i tried worshiping great individuals, who i felt were deserving of my admiration. I tried worshiping women, i've tried worshiping men. I've tried worshiping the scientific method. I've basically tried worshipping everything but god (however i have worshipped natural law which can be considered a god force). All of them have yielded mixed results at best.

Perhaps worship is the improper term. Perhaps a more appropriate term would be LOVE. Of course the problem is we have no choice about what we love. Our body and soul tells us what we love and it doesn't matter what our brain does to control it, all attempts will be inadequete, we have no choice in the matter. I have never really been in love with anything or anyone beyond myself. How much of this is due to my own hang ups and how much of it is due to the world being found wanting is up for debate, but I think it's just really sad. I don't wear it as a badge of honor, I wear it as a badge of shame. It's something that no matter how much I think about it, and no matter how much problem solving acumen I throw its way, I will not solve. It's a matter of the heart not of the brain.

My only recourse is I can attempt to put myself in situations conducive to love and hope it blossoms.

On Being Unemployed

2007-09-10T21:46:00.000-07:00

You have a ton of time to just think. You spend all day thinking about things. Irrelevent things and relevent things blur together and all you are really left with is your thought process, with no sense at all of overarching goals or conclusions to make. The only thing that remains is the method, its purpose entirely lost. It gets really really old.

On the Death of the Republican Party

2007-09-06T12:52:00.000-07:00

"We are one nation--that means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country."- Mike Huckabee
"No. When we make a mistake it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake." - Ron Paul

The fact that the first guy is considered a viable candidate for president and the second a crack pot is the reason why this party will go down in flames, having totally lost sight of anything it claimed to believe in, instead resorting to empty jingoism. This compacted with the fact that Rudy Guiliani (the supposed social liberal, fiscal conservative) spent the entire debate last night laughing at everything Ron Paul said (the constitution, ha ha) means they are dead to me.

What happened? 15 years ago they were talking about things like the contract with america, limited government, and a total contraction of federal power. Now under Bush spending has increased dramatically (yet taxes are lower, the reason is insane deficit spending, essentially stealing from my generation before we even have a chance to earn) more and more departments of gov't are being created and the patriot act has been one of the greatest attacks on civil liberties in years. Add to this Kelo v. New London (not their fault but actually the most subversive development) and the past 6 years have been a total nightmare, with nothing in terms of domestic policy which is a roll back of federal power. Oh yeah there's also the Iraq war which has absurd costs in human life, foreign diplomacy, and the afforementioned loans which my generation will have to pay for later.

What happened of course is 9-11 happened. A republican president, and a republican congress, and an american people rallied behind their gov't wanting them to do a good job. And they fucked up. They fucked up big time. Of course the democrats were either too pussy to actually challenge them on anything or were more calculating, realizing that they could just give the republicans enough rope to hang themselves and take power later. Just spineless politicians at work, with little interesting them other than the quest for power, and the quest to make big important decisions where really more often than not, no one is needed to make such decisions.

So I retire from caring about either of the major parties. They are hollow, and empty and each house only a few individuals worthy of support. All I ask is divided gov't. None of Huckabee's empty buzz words about unity we need fucking DEBATE. So that when one party over steps its bounds, the other party at least has the guts to stand up to it. The less gov't decisions actually made, the better off we all are.

On Happiness

2007-08-15T20:13:00.001-07:00

"We shall have no better conditions in the future if we are satisfied with all those which we have at present." - Thomas Edison

I freqently bring up the fact at random intervals that I am not satisfied with my current situation or current circumstances in my life with my friends and family. More often then not I get the same answers again and again. "You're still young. You have so much going for you, things could be so much worse be happy with what you have." Etc Etc. It is at this point I usually realize that most of my aquaintenaces just want me to be happy which is in intself a pretty awesome thing. I want all of them to be happy as well, but what they are describing are not arguments for happiness but arguments for complacency.

It doesn't matter how much things could be worse or how young I am, I have much in my mind that I wish to accomplish. So long as I believe I am on the path to accomplishing these things I am fairly happy with how things are going. If I am not, then I am upset. It's not too difficult to figure out and it's not a statement about you. I just have to do what I have to do. Perhaps your ideas of a fulfilling life are not my own. I will figure this out by trial and error as (Am I crazy but I belive this to be true) EVERYONE DOES. To be happy with what I have means to be ignorant of the world out there, a world that is far more exciting than where I'm currently situated.

On The Uncertainity of Language

2007-08-14T09:37:00.000-07:00

"If you're not confused, you're not paying attention." - Tom Peters

In mathematics every term has a precise definition, and every word has an exact purpose. When writing proofs, this enables abstract concepts to be communicated clearly and exactly. An open ball obeys the same rules when I talk about it as it does when someone in Russia talks about it. There is no connoctation of it of which I am unaware.

In a little place I visit sometimes called the REAL WORLD WITH REAL PEOPLE things are not so clear. When one says "trash can" there are various predjudices and ideas already associated with that term and what I consider a trash can (a place for waste disposal) might not be what say a scavenger considers a trash can (a source of sustenance). Hence when I talk to a scavenger I should be careful not to point out the fact no matter what he tells himself, he eats my garbage.

There are billions of people on this planet each with their own sets of ideas, predjudices and values. There are associations and collectives formed amongst those who supposedly share similar ones. And if they aren't totally in alignment at the very least their big expressed goals are (make money for a corporation, develop treatments for disease, rob sperm banks, build a better mouse trap, etc.) Once you come into some sense of what goals you want to accomplish then you can seek out likeminded individuals and work with them together in order to do it, no matter what your goal, and you can share a common language that enables you to get things done.

It doesn't matter if it's highly individualistic goal like writing a book or starting your own mechanic's business. You need to read various books for inspiration, or you must find a subject to write about. To top it off you have find someone to read it. No matter what you are sharing experiences, ideas, and lessons which are not exclusively your own. In the case of the mechanic you must study mechanic's manuals or go to mechanic's school so that you can actually do the work required of you. Then you must find people who are willing to trust you to work on their car for an agreed upon fee. Human interaction makes the language uncertain, but in the end it also establishes its true value.

On Veggie Burgers

2007-08-13T16:56:00.001-07:00

They fucking suck

On The Internet

2007-08-13T07:45:00.000-07:00

“The printing press is either the greatest blessing or the greatest curse of modern times, one sometimes forgets which” - James Matthew Barrie

I talked to my boy in Hawaii last night and it was a mindblowingly awesome conversation as usual. I've spoken to him face to face once in the past seven years when he came to New Jersey to visit his relatives. It's just so odd that we've shared so many ideas back and forth over the years and yet he's basically a complete stranger. He moved away after freshman year of high school and our bond is stronger than it ever was, yet at the same time if we saw each other face to face it would be weird as fucking hell.

The fact that it's so impersonal though is partly what makes it so sucessful. When i talk to him all predjudice, misconceptions, self-concious doubt associated with face to face interaction is removed and all that remains is the ideas. The ideas are exchanged fully and completely and judged on their own merit. Also the fact that I don't see him regularly means I can share certain ideas that would be verboten to most immediate friends out of fear of secrets getting out. We have only one truly mutual friend and he's more an old friend from childhood than a significant member of either of our social circles.

The way the ideas we share grow and develop it enables us to experience truly enlightening mental development, and it's all because of the net. I would never in a million years would have called him up regularly, or written him letters and now here we are. Great friends still because of the low costs of communicating and high benefits.

The way the net facilitates communication like never before makes it in my mind the most important information technology development in our time and perhaps the most important development since the moveable type printing press. Just like how the Printing Press was the catalyst for an intellectual revolution I believe the internet will be the catalyst for one as well, and WE are the generation at the forefront. This is extremely exciting time to be alive. This is an amazing time to live and learn, and in the end TO PRODUCE. To come up with ideas that truly make a difference and to communicate them sufficiently to other people has never been easier and more potentially fulfilling.

On Music

2007-08-10T15:28:00.001-07:00

"You know what's wrong with this generation? Their Music is Soulless." - My Dad

As my parents deal with the joyous task of discerning what the fuck exactly is wrong with these kids today. Every so often they'll share their wonderful observations and lessons with me. The above quote my dad shared with me one afternoon (not sure why) but I have to say, he's right and its stuck with me. The main issue I think is today's music is designed for suburban teenagers with disposible income, who have never really had to deal with life directly because they are 1. Young and haven't experienced enough yet and 2. sheltered.

Without any real battles fought in life, and without any real goals to set for oneself of course you're going to be attracted to soulless music. We grow up in suburbs and everything is handed to us on a platter, the only real rule we have to follow is "don't fuck up." We have no soul and we have no real dreams other than fame and fortune. Naturally companies supply the consumer with what it demands and if it matters more to be sophisticated than to experience emotional catharsis then more power to you young suburbanite. "Here's a bunch of whiney emo bands for you enjoy. Here's a bunch of gangstas acting tougher than thou to impress god knows who. You'll love these guys, no one's heard of them yet."

I of course fell victim to this trap when i was in high school and college, I try to listen to a lot of the stuff I loved back in the day and I realize that it's well....pretty terrible. After analysis I realize also that I didn't really even like the music all that much to begin with. The only reason I liked it is because it was "cool" or sophisticated, I didn't really get any true enjoyment out of it. What a fucking waste.

Fairly depressing to go back and listen to some stuff I truly thought I loved and realize well, it's not all that special to me any more. For example, Sufjan Stevens makes some beautiful music, I enjoy it on a formal level I guess but he really isn't saying anything at all. He's just being fragile, that's not soulful. It's fundamentally empty to me now because it seems kind of insincere. Maybe it works for other people still but I don't get anywhere near the same rush I get from it that I thought I did before.

I keep going back more and more to one line from the Killers' Read my Mind. "I want to breathe that fire again." That speaks to me more than any of Sufjan's words and I'm sad to say it, other a few token examples I find I must go to another generation's music in order to find any emotional jolt from music any more.

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." - Steve Martin

On Ron Paul

2007-08-10T08:03:00.000-07:00

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan

So i finally found someone I want to vote for. I've respected Ron Paul for the past ten years with my rather superficial interest in politics (mostly i just listened to mommy and daddy and got some sense of the issues that way) because he was famous for being the closest to a libertarian in gov't. A representative from Texas he pissed off both Republicans and Democrats alike with his insistence on sticking to his principles, namely that the goal of gov't is to promote and protect its citizens' liberty. Not to provide cradle to grave protection, not to promote its citzens' health, but to ensure that they are free, with their rights protected from coersion, force, and fraud. The idea of course is if the gov't protects those things, then the benefits follow as a result. The only truly healthy society is a free one.

Of course the guy has no chance. But he is gaining a substantial following of engineers and computer programmers who are buying into his message as it spreads through out the internet. They have a much better chance of understanding and buying into his argument as it is fundamentally a Design argument. Design the proper framework first, and then the benefits arise as a result.

The problem with this though is that people don't want to be associated with engineers and computer programmers. From the beginning Ron Paul's campaign has been belittled as that of a wacko and a few extremists. Everyone writes him off consistently as being an odd-ball with no real reason of being in the debate. As an anti-war republican he was routinely chastized in the debates and analysis by republican bloggers who have decided now is the time to double down in Iraq. They have attached their party's fortunes to George W. Bush and the War in Iraq and they will go down on that sinking ship together. Enjoy that ride.

So while we await the results of the Iowa straw poll, maybe just maybe we'll see the Republican party faithful realize that they are royally and completely fucked for their blind allegience to George W. Bush. Maybe they'll realize that Hillary is not nearly as despised as they think, and will win the general election fairly easily. Maybe they'll realize their only chance is a realignment with their supossed principles because the last 6 years they completely and totally lost any fucking clue as to what they supposedly support.

So I hope Ron Paul impresses enough to continue to steadily gain the support his ideas SHOULDN'T need. And if he does maybe just maybe we'll witness another triumph of reason and rational argument over the always pervasive FEAR.

On Creative Destruction

2007-08-09T12:30:00.000-07:00

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand

Creative Destruction is a concept from economics relating to the marketplace. New products and ideas are generated, and the end result is the creative destruction of the usefulness of prior products. The computer and word processor has rendered the typewriter defunct, and the end result was yes, the destruction of the typewriter, but also the creation of something far greater, a computer which is far more useful.

The concept is easily applicable to one's own morality. For example many people of "faith" who are religious have moments of doubt and after working things out in their head, their beloved religion is creatively destroyed and they move on to bigger and better moral constructs. Moral constructs which enable them to reach their goals like their religious views could not. (Of course it swings both ways as the godless who live lives of sin frequently become born again and are able to finally find peace with the world).

The creative destruction is what enables a society to function, otherwise we'd all still be writing on a typewriter or reading Ayn Rand. True progress comes from the challenge and destruction of outdated models of production and thought. Ayn's philosophy was an oversimplification and one based exclusively on childish delusions about human behavior but her points were not without merit. Just like the typewriter has it's uses and was an essential tool in it's own time and place. But nowadays it is defunct, just like a lot of what Mrs. Rand has to say about a fulfilling life.

On The Proliferation of Good Ideas

2007-08-09T06:47:00.000-07:00

"An amazing thing, the human brain. Capable of understanding incredibly complex and intricate concepts. Yet at times unable to recognize the obvious and simple." - Jay Abraham

So guess what, my co-worker/supervisor has decided she's going to quit as well. As soon as she closes on her house she's out of here, presumably to pump out some kids with her husband. Wow this company is a sinking ship. The work is insanely boring and offers little to no insight on market trends. So 55% of consumers think an ad featuring a Foreman is better than an ad featuring a Fire chief? That's the kind of insight businesses need to make their decisions.

Which gets to the fundamental problem with market research, it serves two purposes and two purposes only.

1. To allow cowards to make decisions - Not sure what market campaign to use? Why bother taking a chance when you can hire market researchers to do the work for you? They'll interview countless apathetic consumers and figure out their opinion on various topics. Of course none of them really give a shit, but they'll be pressed to give responses. Wanting to provide something of insight, they'll tell you they either like it or dislike it and for what reason, when the reality of the situtation is the campaign had no impact on them, just like it will when they see it on television 2 months later.

2. To provide evidence to support the decision already made - Need to convince people that your decision is correct? Well show them the market research. They'll be unable to argue against objective facts like 53% of doctors think Singulair is more effective than Asmanex. That sort of information is too ground breaking to ignore! No way consumers will ignore it either.

This whole enterprise is just so fundamentally retarded. But of course corporations are the ones with the money. They can throw it at pointless enterprises like discovering so called inefficiencies in the market and exploiting them. Consumer behavior is so inherently irrational though, to force them to explain their actions rationally is an enterprise doomed to failure.

Compound that with the fact that our analysis is so unsophisticated there is absolutly no reason for this company to exist. We bring NOTHING to table on every contract. And I in turn bring NOTHING to the table on every job. The company is a farce and I don't care about its success at all. I care about the people involved who are decent people, but the collective means nothing to me.

And that is at heart what free enterprise corporate system is about, collectivism. You sacrifice your individuality and freedom for the security of a weekly pay check and health insurance. This security enables you to do wonderous things if its what you need. You can raise children, you can go on vacation to spectacular locales. You can impress women with gifts and fancy dinners. You can be constantly reaffirmed of your worth to the world by the size of your bank account. But your mind dies a slow painless death, and apathy, indifference, and nihilisim takes over your being. So all in all it's a trade some people don't mind making, but i'm tired of it. And I won't make it again any time in the foreseable future.

More power to my co-worker/supervisor. She's doing what's right for her. And THAT is what really matters, not what's right for the collective.

On Writing

2007-08-08T18:59:00.000-07:00

"You must feel not that you want to [write] but that you have to." - Christopher Hitchens

So here I am with a blog. I never imagined this. I always thought it was sort of vain to have a blog as if one's ideas were so valuable one must share it with the world. However, I always thought I was sort of vain myself so it makes sense. In any case I'm going to probably spend time writing here, if not for anyone who bothers to read it then for myself primarily.

I quit my job on monday. Why? Because it was horrible is the main reason. I wanted to see what the working world was like, having spent so much time in the wonderful confines of academia's ivory tower. And here I am, college degree, in a supposedly useful field like math, scrounging for shitty corporate jobs that crush my soul. Granted I get paid, and money is good. I can use money in exchange for various products and services which can refuel my soul for it's weekly thrashing. But I mean to what purpose? A while ago many of our parents decided to devote their lives to raising money to spend on their children so they can have opportunities that they didn't have. Does that mean they gave up on their own dreams so we could actually have a chance to live them? Were their souls crushed for us to feed off of? Did they make the ultimate sacrifice?

If so, then wow that's a lot of pressure. Better not fuck up. Better make sure to fly right, treat myself well so that one day if I'm lucky I can rise to the position of regional vice president. And then you know what? Then i'll have enough money to make sure my kids go to the right school and have the right clothes to be that big success I never was.

On Politics

2007-08-08T16:59:00.000-07:00

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right... The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds." - H.L. Mencken.

I enjoy a fine political discussion so long as it's with someone who shares my main goal in any political debate. The purpose of any political discussion is to figure out what is the best course of action for the government to take on an issue. This means exchanging various ideas on the subject (usually developed by so called experts) and coming to some idea of what your take on the information at hand is. At least this is the idea. However most people don't seem to see things this way. They can be broken down in stereotypes as such:

1. The Partisan - The most obnoxious type to deal with, they don't care AT ALL what you think, just what party you are alligned with. Then once they figure that out they either attack your party and people who run it (by extension attacking you) if it is not their party of choice or they attack the opposing party and you two are supposed to bond based on the fact that at least you don't belong to that other party of assholes. Who cares honestly? So party A is full of a bunch of crooks, that doesn't mean party B isn't full of a bunch of crooks AND MOST IMPORTANTLY that doesn't mean my ideas on the TOPIC at hand (what we were supposed to be discussing) are valid or invalid. See also: fanatic

2. The Single Issue Voter - This person only gives a shit about one thing, and will try to shift any possible debate to a debate about that subject. Not only that your opinion in the debate is dependent ENTIRELY on agreeing with this person on said subject. If you don't see things eye to eye on THAT subject then clearly your opinion does not matter. Annoying to deal with in discussion but also annoying because of their impact on politics. Politicians love the single Issue voter because he/she is easy to understand. Take a stand on that issue and you know you can start counting up the votes for you, and the votes for the other guy. You don't have to worry about actually producing any policy ideas of substance. See also: fanatic.

The crazy thing is if they actually paid any fucking attention, they'd realize that their party is just as bankrupt as the other party's, and which politician they supported on their big issue, never actually does anything of substance about it. When has anything of substance ever been done about abortion in the past 30 years? Has anything been done about the Death Penalty at all? Yet this is why we vote for certain politicians? Aren't there much more important things at hand like COMPETENCE? WHY DOES EVERYONE CHOOSE THEIR POLITICIANS BASED ENTIRELY ON FEAR.

If I were to have a thesis to this post, it would be that basically politics is driven exclusively by anger and fear. No one actually gives a shit about their own issues or their own party, they just hate the opposing viewpoint/party. The idea of the other party or viewpoint prevailing is so terrorifying that it makes them incredibly angry. The reason of course is like George Washington said "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” No one understands how this force can be used to better the citzenry because our history only really provides countless examples of how it can damage them.

2007-03-09T08:07:00.001-08:00

BULLSHIT