Objectivity vs. Mitt Romney

Now, first off, let's be clear: Obama was Goldman-Sachs' pick for president last time-- he's proven to be a fraud, now the big banks are running against his record supporting an even more vile candidate, and it's looking more and more like Romney will win. Watching the debates it's pretty clear why. Both men are running on platforms mostly comprised of fantasy and mythology, and the voters are choosing on the basis of which dream they'd rather dream rather than any basis of choice rooted in objective reality. Of the two delusional visions to choose from I find Romney's much more vile-- and it's worthy to point out some of the reasons his delusions are much more dangerous, at least in the near term.

First-- Romney's claim to fame, his resume, if you will-- is all based on the notion that he's some kind of businessman. He's got the talent for "making money" -- that's American, that's business oriented, that's practical. The fact is, however, he's no talent for making money at all. Now, sure as shit he's got a prime set of sticky fingers and he's pretty fine at taking it. . .but as far as I can see he's never, ever, created any real value on his own. This is an important distinction, and I'm surprised that more "pro-business" folk can't figure that out-- in fact Romney is very anti-business-- at least of the "creating value" kind, which, of course, is the only kind we of average non-richer-that-god sorts have available to us. Leveraged buyouts, offshore accounts, special access to legislators--ability to buy off regulators--key to Mitt's wealth. . .this is exactly the kind of behavior that has crushed small business: it's destroyed the economy, it's destroyed access to credit, it's increased costs of doing business(and promoted regulatory burdens--stuff the Mitts can ignore, but the little guy can't)-- and most dangerously and importantly, it's destroyed to competitive marketplace. You can't compete with Mitt. He's a taker, and he'll pay a buddy to write a law so he can buy you out, saddle you with debt, steal the companies value, bankrupt you, and personally claim the loss against his profits.

Let's be clear-- if you're a creator of value-- you're screwed in this economy-- and while the Mitts run the show(think big grabby hands when you think Mitt, it's a useful image) forget getting ahead. You could do something unbelievable amazing, like create a pill that magical cured cancer, aging, and loss of libido in one shot-- and you still couldn't make the kind of money Mitt's got. Why? 'Cause you're not going to get to go to school to learn the skills unless you pay off Mitt. You'll need to do your research at Mitt's company. Mitt will own the rights to your research anyway--as you're working for him, of course. Even if you could figure a way around that he'll just steal the research from you-- you can't afford to sue against him-- out of luck once again. Even if you got a Lesser Mitt to back you you'll still lose, as you'll pay more taxes, be forced to deal with more oversight, and eventually the Big Mitt will run you underground. No offense, nothin' personal, just business, right? Hardly. . .Mitt's business plan is no more brilliant than that of the average carjacker-- and that's written large in his life and his campaign-- from avoiding military service, to tax evasion and offshore accounts, to his double dipping business practices, his scammy relationship with politics all the way along, his sleazy peer-group--to now how he's run his campaign-- bullshit, deception, and expediency all the way through.

So, with that skillset, how you figure he'll handle the reins of the US economy?

By the way. . .

So a friend the other day called:

"Hey Jay, enjoy your recent posts, but don't you think you're really being a bit hard and extreme in your judgements about personal culpability? I mean, you're making some pretty heavy comparisons there. . ."

Well, I don't know. Let's look at it:

Frankly, it really doesn't matter a great deal what my judgements are. No one really cares and my opinions don't matter very much-- unless -- unless -- they're in some sense prescient of the attitudes of future generations. Then they may matter a great deal. I think, in fact, they are. Personally, I expect-- looking at the mess we're handing the future that my attitudes are actually pretty moderate and I try to keep a responsible level of objectivity with them. In fact, I'd suggest that forty or so years from now a guy like me struggling to survive in a poisoned, dying, brutal world will have a lot harder time having any sense of justice or moderation in his judgements at all. . .and frankly I anticipate--fear even--simple blind vengeful rage. Those people are going to wonder how the hell, how the hell, we made the choices we did. They're going to wonder where our courage was, and how we allowed events to unfold as they are. Those of us left are mostly going to try to plead ignorance('cept me, nah, it was obvious) but that's going to be a pretty weak defense especially falling on ears listening for a damn good explanation. And it will have to be a good one indeed, as the expectation from the historic evidence will be clear-- we were just too busy feeling smug about ourselves, stuffing our faces, indulging in wishes, and not giving a shit. So yeah, I think there's a very good reason to think about how our actions right now might be judged by future folk. . .

And no, and in that context, I don't think my positions are that radical at all.

Pants on fire. . .

So, tell me.

When is the last time in a presidential election where the "biggest liar" lost?

Just askin'

Context:

This very well delivered talk worth one's time.

Here:

Now? More blather about sustainability?

The Greatest Enemy of Progress:

A bit of a revelation shared here this morning. After my TEDx presentation in Hilo here a couple of months ago and a few follow up encounters I've had to admit that there were some very fundamental issues pertaining to climate change(and of course our debt issues, and resource depletion as well--it's all the same problem, after all), stuff that I'd really made the mistake of overlooking. . .I think most all of us made the mistake of overlooking. . .kinda on purpose a lot of times.

Let me posit a new meme, a prime requisite for engendering progress. . .

The greatest enemy of progress in the modern world isn't ignorance, but rather cynicism.


In speaking to a lot of people, one finds as the polls confirm, that the number of people who are in denial about the big issues of today are really pretty sparse, less than 1 in 5, and generally hold their views not because of any sort of thoughtful position but rather of selfish kneejerk ideology. They're unreachable, of course, but their rhetoric can resonate with a larger population--desperate to dismiss the evidence. Still, honestly, in speaking to people, this sort of stuff doesn't account for the main reason for their unwillingness to act.

Here's why progress is stalled.

1. People dismiss the data not because of the lack of persuasiveness of it. They don't get even as far as looking at it. They feel justified in dismissing the data even before looking at it because of the lack of evidence that "the evidence" seems to be persuasive to the very people that claim to find it persuasive. We are accustomed, hardened even, to a perpetual onslaught of sales pitches-- of people talking their book. To to be able to sniff out and reject claims on the basis of the apparent integrity of the one espousing them may be cynicism, pure and simple-- but in our culture it's also a very valuable survival skill. It's especially worth considering in this case, as there is a large moral component to all of our pressing issues, and there's an reasonable expectation that one who was in possession of such important truth would, well, "walk the walk." And there's very very very few examples of this, especially among "leading spokes-people," whatever that might mean. . . oh yeah, I guess I mean those people who have enough affluence and free-time to spend more than their share of time holding a microphone. Strike one!

2. Now, of course-- it doesn't help a damn bit that very often those ( talking the talk, not walking the walk) very often get involved in all sort of commercial ventures somehow loosely attached ideologically to "the issues"-- and set out in an obvious attempt to maintain their current unsustainable lifestyles by peddling "sustainable living." Whether pimping alternative energy, green building, whiz-bang technology, setting out to be some kind of eco-fabulous talking head, selling homeopathic tinctures that offset CO2-- or whatever, anything other than cutting consumption. . . Well, you know, people don't really like hypocrites, especially hypocrites that are selling stuff. Now sure, there's a certain amount of commerce in all of this stuff as hypocrites have a vested interest in buying stuff from other hypocrites in an attempt to try to give their cute tricks some credibility, but the larger audience doesn't buy it-- they see right through it, or at least think they do. For them it's simply further evidence that the "issue" is a scam. Cynicism Strike two!

3. Now here's the real kicker: The thoughtful individual who is mostly informed of the data, but full aware of 1 and 2 asks themselves. . .Wow, I'd really like to try to make a difference, but to do so will require some hard work and meaningful sacrifice. But I can't do it alone, and if I make sacrifices while others do not I gain nothing and only lose in both the short AND the long run. Sure! Straight up, clean game-theory here, and they're absolutely right and rationally justified in holding such a position.  This is, in fact, not an attitude held of ignorance at all, but rather a well informed one.

Strike three! No wonder we're not getting anywhere. Whoops, rather to say, no wonder we're actually losing ground.  Those of us who would set ourselves up as "advocates' for a better world would do well to realize that we're not very convincing-- and the reason we're not very convincing isn't that A) our facts are weak, nor B) people are too stupid to understand our argument-- it's that we ourselves come across lacking integrity and commitment personally and that we belie our own message by our actions and lifestyles.


We will not make any progress until we realize at the core of all these issues is a willingness to sell out the future for short term gain. We will not make any progress until there is meaningful economic justice and equal opportunity, across nationality, sex, race, or class. We will not make any progress until there is meaningful economic equality. This inherent fairness is critical, as it's simply impossible to ask those to choose against themselves for the greater good while others in positions of privilege exploit the greater good. . .and in fact profit by the fact of lack of justice and the crises engendered by it.


This is why it's patently obvious that guys like Al Gore and other eco-fabulous jackasses like that are the absolutely worst spokemen for "sustainability"-- and they'd do us all a great service if they dried up and went away. I mean, come on! Let me tell you some thing for certain-- if we actually get there, I promise you this: A sustainable planet can't have any Al Gores on it!


So, those of us who would want to strive for a better world had best attend to our own affairs first, and once we've been successful enough to possess a solid enough display of integrity to defeat objections 1) and 2) by our own commitments to justice, only then are we in a position to take on objection 3). Otherwise, let me suggest, or "shout out" actually, you're not helping a thing.

Occupy Wall Street Hilo: Oct 15

Details here:

Our discussion here:

There is potential that this may be a pretty interesting moment in history. We'll see.

The Opportunity of the Decade!

This weekend, in Hilo, at TEDx Waiakea-- you'll have the unique opportunity to. . .

Gosh, that's right! Actually see me not wearing work clothes. That's right, no pine tar, epoxy, motor oil, paint, varnish, hydraulic fluid, chain saw scuzz, PVC cement, banana juice, chicken shit, spilled beer, soldering flux, battery acid, concrete, sawdust, metal filings, fish scales, tree sap, filth, permatex, rust, charcoal, mud, bits of string, bottom paint, blood, and hopefully little sweat and tears. This is a rare event indeed, kinda shocking for me.

I fear an allergic reaction.

The topic of this TEDx event is "Simple Ways to Power Yourself and Your Community." While honored to be featured there, in many ways I've really learned the key to all that is "talk less, and do more." Making an exception, I guess, here on this blog, and certainly for the event, and I hope that I can offer a constructive message. It's been a lot of work for me putting one together, and one that has involved a great deal of soul-searching--as I've been forced to confront my audience--perhaps not so much locally but otherwise largely one of "mainstream" people -- something I don't have a lot of contact with anymore, and haven't, frankly, in years. In many ways my life path has been one of seeking "authentic" experience as a means to reach personal integrity. That personal integrity, of course, compels one to adopt an informed, realistic, but heroically optimistic world view(even if that part is kinda iffy) and this blog has a lot of that kind of observations muddled through it. The observation today, frankly, is that "authenticity" is rarely, rarely, rarely found in talk, but in the evidence of past action. As in a lot of ratty worn out clothes that are the badges of projects taken on and completed. It is remarkable that in order to reputably address a mainstream audience on the subject "empowerment" with a message of "authenticity" I'll need to personally shed any evidence of actually having any.

Please, can't I at least bring the welder? LOL.

Seriously, it is remarkable, and telling.  A lot on my mind lately, in a constructive manner, sure. But I've got to admit to being deeply burdened by the reality of the moment and responsibility that comes from it. Our community is really starting to suffer, and that's just the facts-- it's easy for me to carry the concern that time spent flapping my mouth or typing away here could and should be better spent raising yet another round of birds, or welding up a cook stove or two(propane is now 6 bucks a gallon on the island), planting taro-- endless the options, there. However, I do feel though it may be as important as bear witness to hollowness and moral bankruptcy of the moment. . .simply, sincerely, authentically. . .to at least deny those that exploit the moment the defense of ignorance. . .as if any would believe it anyway.

Ah, but you friends of mine, don't doubt. You know I'll give 'em hell!

Thanks, Larry, for the opportunity, and all the time and effort put into organizing the event! Kilauea SilviCulture pledges to donate and plant a tree for all attendees! That ought to get some pants properly muddied up!

Appropriate Technology for the Future:

We'll set aside my tirade about Rick "Imperial Dragon" Perry of the Koch Klimate Klan-- it looks to be a foregone conclusion that we'll (s)elect that monster to be the next "Leader of the Free World." I don't want to be accused of beating a dead horse here. . .

Did I mention he's the god-damned "antichrist?" Seriously!

Anyway, in the interest of being constructive I thought today I'd introduce skills that may well become important in the future that we're likely to face: Flint Knapping and Gnawing.

Flint knapping, of course, is the traditional art of making stone edged tools by chipping hard stone, like obsidian  or flint. Without the means, especially fuel, to work metals, knapping can produce implements much superior to more primitive techniques, like poking stuff with sharp sticks or mashing things apart with rocks. Here in Hawaii we don't have in hard rocks like that, and probably won't have any fuel either--especially after the bio-mass to energy boys get ahold of the forests--so we'd better stick to techniques that we can actually manage in the future of scarcity that seems all but unavoidable.

Gnawing, as well, is a time honored tradition for getting stuff apart. Compared to knapping, it is relatively simple to master. Rats can do it. But it too has its technical limitations, as it relies on teeth, something already starting to show signs of scarcity in East Hawaii. Around the world scarcity of teeth, especially prevalent among males of the warrior class, was compensated for by again utilizing sharp sticks and mashing rocks, used to compel women and children(who still possessed the tools for gnawing) to perform the necessary tasks. Sharp sticks and rocks were also useful to produce extra children even among toothless women, so teeth proved to be a true renewable resource manageable even in cultures of comparative austerity. . .

. . .Now as promising as either of these two technologies seem to be, personally I kinda like to dream for the moonshot--like practicing a little, authentic, thinking ahead and conservation now--as it seems to me that if we responsibly steward our resources now, we might not even need to worry about the scarcity of teeth that much in the future.  . .

. . .Nah, I know. Just a pipedream. Conservation? Good stewardship? Too much work. It would cut too much into our quality of life. . .be realistic, Jay.

Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: IV

Big guns, now: good vs. evil?

See I wasn't really raised so much to believe in evil, as well, as Nietzsche said "You may search the world for evil, but alas, all you may find is the bad," meaning, of course, that being evil is really hard to do, and you've got to really want it, and you've got to be fucked up in a galactic kind of way to do that. You've got to be a bit superhuman, really. Most people want just the bad, which is just some weird twisted version of the good, selfishly-- so you'll sell out at your own convenience to get it.. A lot like our current President, or perhaps Mitt(Holy Underwear) Romney.

I was also a brainy geek kid, chess club sort, who loved Dungeons and Dragons and all that, as it was this completely wonderful world to play thought experiments with. Contrary to what the evangelical idiots thought, it wouldn't drag you to the DEVIL, as well, there was one, drawn up nicely by a set of rules, and all the rest in the game, you got to know "it" personally, and you'd figure out it wasn't a very good winning proposition to have anything to do with any of that DEVIL stuff unless you were nuts and self-destructive. In fact, being stupid doesn't work with "evil," you've got to really work at it or you just end up being "bad.". I'm telling you, it's not simple.  Think about it. Take some time. It ain't a simple issue. You'll find, if you think about it, you can end up being good and stupid, by mere accident, and I guess it counts, if anyone keeps score, but to be evil you've to to really mean it. You've got to be deliberate. For what end? It can't be chicky-poos, or wealth, or power, or any of that-- that's just bad again. See, evil can't have an end but itself. You've got to want it because you just want it,  itself. Ah, Epistemology. . . People still tell me they believe in "evil."  I say, well, try a thought experiment. Lock yourself up in a closet and just be all "evil" by yourself for a couple hours and see how that works out for you. What do you figure you're going to do? Be pissy? Angry? Think mean thoughts? Cut on yourself?(can't do much of that, you've got a couple of hours!). Bunk. Evil is a joke!

Well, now we've got Rick Perry.

Now seriously, this makes me wonder. This dude is fucked up, in a supreme galactic sort of way. He can't, absolutely can't, impossibly can't, be as stupid as he makes himself. His state is in the worst drought in history. Nope, no such thing as climate change, he says. Evidence is out, like it is on dinosaur eggs. Or maybe Enron too, or a whole lot of stuff it's handy not to think about. He has executed more people that any other Texas Gov., a high bar, frankly, and has "no doubts, whatsoever" about his doing so. He believes, in spite of the fact that he lives square on top of the best piece of oil real estate in the US, that "environmentalists" are impeding oil exploration. . .Like there's parts of Texas that haven't been looked at? Isn't it legal in Texas to shoot environmentalists(whatever that means) on sight? He's a Christian Dominionist? You just look this up on your own. . .Let's be clear, this fucker is a monster. I understand it's poor taste to compare people to Hitler. I wouldn't dare, so I wouldn't. Hitler was a beast, for sure, but I don't believe he had some complete willing, complicit desire to destroy all of humanity and creation? Hitler was a fascist, a complete egotistical nutcase, and wanted to restore some kind of weird ass mythological motherland. As fucked up as that is, at least I can stretch my head to get around it, and maybe try to understand why.

To deliberately commit violent, self-destructive, self-demeaning suicide for myself and everyone else I might  know, doing everything one can to drag them into it, well, is something I don't, or didn't, believe was a mindset possible to exist.

I've got to tell ya, I've been in a lot of churches in my time.  My Dad was an undertaker, after all, and we got to see all that religiosity  layed out in its glory. Dogma? Sure, seen lots of that. Bigotry? Sure, seen lots and lots of that. Racism? Sure, seen lots of that. Classism? Less of that, but growing, for sure. Homophobia? Some of that, but shrinking.. Stupidity? Tons and tons of that. Selfishness. all that? Well, of course. Evasion of personal responsibility? Well, hell! What do you think religion was created for?

Completely blind ass evil? I didn't believe it possible.

Rick Perry has expanded my mind.

The Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: III

So it would have been in the late 50's or so when my Grandfather, a rather devout, even dogmatic sort of Mennonite farmer--plowed up a nest of dinosaur eggs preparing some new farm ground. The eggs are at a natural history museum in Spokane now. I've got half of one, cut and polished. I wasn't there, but I can imagine the scene a bit. It would have been the era, of course, where the whole creation vs. evolution(fight, you can't call it a debate) was probably hitting the mainstream in rural America. My grandfather wouldn't have been the kind of guy who would have spent a lot of time worrying about it, as wheat farming gave him all the worrying he needed--as he would have figured that if he was supposed to care, he'd probably be "encouraged" to do so. Well, here was encouragement to think about it--in the form of a half dozen perfect, oddly shaped eggs.

Now I can very much imagine his thought process. He was not particularly educated, but was a experienced and keen observer of nature. He would have known for sure that the size of the eggs were far too large for birds, and the shape was all wrong anyway, having seen plenty of snake eggs. He might have heard some of the hyperbolic explanations from the more evangelical sorts: explanations of how the dinosaurs were created on day one and the extinguished, or died in the "flood" or some crap like that, but I'm sure the fact that these were eggs would have held some sway, and a nest, which spoke of creatures living their lives rather than some exhibitory divine freakshow. He would have known also that it wasn't unusual to find other sorts of fossils either, stuff that couldn't possibly co-exist with big lizards, like mastodon tusks or dire wolves--and if anything to try to believe that all this stuff had happened in a week just a few thousand years ago was simply implausible. He wouldn't have needed to be a research scientist to known this, he was a natural scientist who had enough life experience and eyes in his head to think that a bit of a stretch. Creation was a revelation of God, after all, and it wouldn't lie to you. Besides, while he was familiar with his bible, for sure, he was familiar enough to understand that the "word of God must be read with guidance by the small, still voice of the Holy Spirit"-- meaning, that you just can't take everything in there verbatim, but you must practice a certain amount of cautious, thinking discernment. Jeez, how sensible. . .

See, being a bit of a bible scholar myself, having studied the thing cover to cover in my youth, I can promise you in there no-where is a commandment that one must be a dumb-ass. Science was encouraged in our household, for sure, as much as bible reading, as both, with guidance by that that "small, still voice" were was of understanding God. Ultimately, for me, I was far more persuaded by the likes of Issac Asimov or Carl Sagan-- perhaps also Hegel, Schopenhauer, Jung, on and on--Marcus Aurelius and Gung Fu Tze: these satisfied the answers of my "small, still voice" than did the various zealots from the dark ages. . .that's the path of growth, and how it happens. Does that "small, still voice" still speak to this atheist? Sure.

Contrasting now for a moment. . .just for giggles. Nervous ones.

Michele Bachmann?  This woman probably hears voices, but I doubt they're "small, still ones." For fuck sakes, she's running for president and getting somewhere trying. Mind you, she believes 1) The earth was created in a week some 8000 years ago 2) Climate change not just not happening, but is a hoax 3) Her homophobic husband is actually straight.

Some video fun. There's much more along this line if you follow the links. Be careful, if you haven't heard this kind of stuff be prepared to pick your jaw up off the floor.

So just how do people get to be this stupid? It's really worth a question, and education or lack of it isn't the issue. What it is, as far as I see it, the causal element is privilege, mostly the privilege to live your life in evasion of any facts or details that might challenge your selfish preconceived opinions. It gives one the option of being removed from the details that make up what most of us call "reality." But that's good old Michele and to a large degree describes the overfed pin-heads that support her. Privilege? That's not my background, for sure, nor my family, and so we have a tendency to adopt a critical eye especially towards things we want to believe. One can find oneself in a position where one cannot afford the luxury to believe foolish things for comfort, nor the risk of being wrong. Lack of privilege demands pragmatism, and objectivity--not dogma or idealism-- it might surprise people that that my Grandfather sold his farm in 1976, because of climate change. He would have been unaware of the research, but he was wholly aware of the level of the water in his well and the dates he had planted and harvested over the previous 50 years-- that would have convinced him far more than any scholarly study.  But we that work with our hands can't have our head, ahem, in the clouds.

Hand that stupid fool a shovel-- she might learn something.

The Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: II

Following on the last post, it's worth putting some time and effort considering the implications of the "yoked" terminology. It's a much more refined view than one hears from many "empowerment" camps--who might otherwise use terminology such as dispossession, or exploitation, or enslavement-- see, the term "yoked" is important-- as within Anabaptist tradition one realizes that the "yoked" animal puts its head into the harness willingly, and performs work against its own better future for the short term gain of a couple of handfuls of feed. 


The wisdom of this tradition is to understand that one has personal culpability in the bearing of a yoke.

Well?

See, personal responsibility is central to these people. There are no innocent bystanders in this world view. Sure, you'll find kids around the world in terrible situations, but in a lot of cases the fault for that child's condition and the villain can be capably lain at the feet of not only some oppressing elite class(a growing and currently favorite) but also the kid's parents, and grandparents, who stuck their head in a yoke and empowered the exploitative force by their own efforts to seek an easy handful of feed. And I think there's a good point, if not an absolute one, there: most people find themselves in the positions of "dis-empowerment" not by exploitation by others, but by selling out to them.

Cognitive Dissonance seems to me to be the critical flaw of most progressive movements I value: no wonder, our culture has high expectations of maintenance. Few are willing to carry the burden of remaining independent, and we have found that the most effective way of controlling a herd isn't bullwhips but to feed it well. (Alert! Feed sack is running empty, and bullwhips must suffice in such environments!) It's little wonder to me as to why we see such little progress being made-- using climate change again as an example -- of all these organizations "battling" climate change all the while "yoked" to funding, support, media access, even expectation of lifestyles--on and on, coming from sources that have absolutely the opposite goal in mind. End result? Losing ground, of course.

Look, let's be clear: there is no way to preserve "spotted owl" habitat and hunt Californian Perky-titted Golddiggers.  Any of us who would want to make a change for a better world will need to be damned careful in what we do, how we live our lives, what our expectations are, who we work for, if we're serious about getting some traction on the issues we care about. The temptations to stick one's head in a "yoke" are strong, and opportunities ubiquitous. It may in fact be that at the moment it's all but impossible to operate effectively within mainstream--or even semi-mainstream society-- and keep one's values and benevolence intact. I expect that's the case. This is an extreme moment in history, and I see very few options left but stepping aside, washing one's hands of the whole business, and living in quietude, separation, and independence as much as possible-- until the season changes. There's a message here, but the corn-fed don't want to hear it yet. Once the whips come down, I expect there will be a renaissance of interest. 


That's hardly powerless, after all. Enjoy the moment. Preserve your strength.