The good the bad and the philosophy

Maura I think you made some great points, and I don't think using an extreme is a bad way to back up an argument. 

As to using society and government to define what good is seems to be very delicate indeed.  The war on Terror, and Iraq was deemed good by society and the government but countless numbers have died and suffered because of it.  In fact they seem to be exactly the scenario that you described with the bank robber.

I'll share what has really got me thinking.  It was a TV series called Dexter, the gist is that he is a serial killer that only kills people who have continued to murder or who have slipped through the justice system.  Now I am torn is this guy a hero or no better than the people he is killing? I am a black and white kinda guy but this, no this is a serious conundrum to me.  I feel punishment has its place but murder is murder.  But then I look at jail, and lots of tax payers money goes into them, and they really don't solve anything if anything they create a stronger criminal more well connected criminal.  

So the conclusions that I have been coming to are that good and my definition of it, is undeniable linked to society, government, religion, and you all but I am the one who molds it to me and my actions that I deem good are in the end all on me.  And maybe that good is just a fantasy, and a form of control.  

Another conclusion is that there really is no good, or bad there is just reality.  For as I have been talking about, good, bad and philosophy are deeply personal and individually defined.  If someone is killed it is good to some and bad to others and well, in another sense it just is, no terminology, no definition, just someone being killed.  And if I have a view of a God, that is how It views things, no definitions, no required church or homage or actions are just actions no terms of good or bad.  A Being that can create such as this in my mind would not be humanly vain and require said things.  To It we just are nothing more and maybe a whole lot less.

Always in pursuit of Arete

Zachary

p.s. Ms. Ward I know you have been reading these blogs so post some opinions

Re: Philosophy and Good

Ok, Zac, again, i'm going to give this a try. please go easy on me.
I think that you bring up a pretty interesting topic. I've taken enough philosophy courses in college that I'm one shy of a minor right now. I think philosophy is awesome and interesting, although not always applicable.
So I was reading an article the other day on the Patriots Persuit of Perfection. The article interestingly enough referenced Aristotle's definition of perfection, which is as follows:
1) Which is complete - which contains all the requisite parts
2) which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better
3) which has attained its purpose
Having defined Aristotle's version of perfection, and tying in his definition of good - a man with a purpose, is it safe to say that a man who achieves his purpose is not only good, but perfect? It could be a stretch. But so let's for example say a man robs banks. He has a purpose. He has all the proper tools and plans, bank designs, etc (part 1) He is so good he is the only bank robber to never have been caught (part 2) He always attains his purpose of robbing banks (part 3). So, in philosophical thought this man is good and perfect.
I know that seems far fetched and maybe stupid, but thats how i relate to this subject. I think that is is absurd. Philosophy is interesting and great, but parts of it cannot be taken as is. These definitions, in some situations can apply. I could make up an example in the opposite. But they are definitely not black and white. That's where peoples morals, values, society, government, etc. come in to help define it. Any way you look at these words I think it all comes down to society and individuals.
Ok, im done. I hope this was educated enough for this blog...
Maura

Philosophy and Good

The greatest thing about reading philosophy is that it makes you question everything, the worst part is that there are not very many people around to talk out the questions.  Hence, this post.

I have been reading a lot about what is good, and right.  My favorite bit was Aristotle saying that a man with a purpose is good, the most good a man can be in fact.  My knee jerk answer is to agree with him full heartedly because in my mind there is few greater evil in society then a person without purpose

So here is my dilemma.  What is this word good.  Everyone uses it, I would wager it is used almost every day. But I can't seem to fit a consistent definition to it.  The dictionary says:

Good, adj, noun, interjection, adverb

1. morally excellent, virtuous, righteous

        2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree

3. of high quality; excellent

4. right; proper

But it seems everyone has their own meaning to good and apply their own morals, and agendas to good.  So does that mean in order for you to do what 'ole Aristotle says is good is to twist good to be what you want it to be, or to you follow what society says is good, or the church, or your friends, or the government?  Looking at all five mentioned parties I would dare say that good has a lot of contradictions in its implementation.  

So can you have a philosophy, any philosophy if the core word that defines actions purpose and worth is so flexible and inconsistent?  Or is philosophy not generalizable because the definition of good, and pursuit in good's name is so personal? 

This may be a moot point and many of you may think why argue or talk about good, good is self evident or that good is good and I should know it.  But I don't and to excise and study a philosopher's words I have to first speak the language, and since good is the crux of most all of them, I need to hold down good's flexibility to move forward.  

And this may be why people need religion and are drawn by the thousands to follow it, because religion can define good.  Or maybe it is why I am drawn to many of you because we think our goods have the same definition.  

So role your eyes,  write back your comments or both, but it may be hard to type.

Cheers

Zachary

Election

I am not sure who I will vote for in the primaries, Obama (voting defensively against Clinton) or Mccain (offensively in that he is the only one who I think can beat a dem).  I think Romney if a joke of a candidate, he reminds me of Kerry.  

I do not forsee voting for either of them in the final election

-Zachary 

McCain Baby

McCain Baby

Republican Primary

Sen. John McCain Wins Florida Republican Primary

Looks like no Giuliani. So who are you backing now - McCain or Romney?

Environment

Hodgie it seems me and you are having back and forth conversations since no one else writes on this great blog.
As to the organic food, movement. I completely disagree with you and think it is one of the best things to happen to the American public. While you are correct that it does take more land to produce the food without fertilizers and pesticides, it does make for a cleaner environment. And we are literally killing the earth. Not to mention we are changing animals, feeding them only corn which are meant to be grazers and not only hurting the animals but ourselves as well. The fertilizers and pesticides are causes numerous cancers as well as completely destroying our ground water, lakes rivers and streams. read http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater/waterquality/deadzone.asp
For those who don't I'll summarize, basically all the shit Hodge wants put on our crops pollutes our freshwater and makes it way down the Mississippi and cause a dead zone in the gulf that is 4200-7000 square miles that nothing can grow or live. That's pretty damn serious.
And subsidising farming is ridiculous, but its political, food means power and trade. And farming isn't cut down cause if one farmer goes out of business another buys the land and it never left alone to be natural.
You talk about lollipop politics, but what about lollipop environment economics, what you are proposing about all the fertilizers is that exactly.
This is a good subject for me, because I feel we are being severely environmentally irresponsible.
Hodge read Omnivores Dilemma

-Zachary

re: The Blog

I love how well the blog is going. Mr. Hodges has surprisingly been the 2nd highest contributor and Zac did not let me down either. Notably, some of the women have been conspicuously quiet...

Ideally, I'd like this blog to be a way for people to let off steam in a quick, no-spell checking manner. What I mean is, we can have posts that are quick 1-line questions/comments/ideas and hopefully get responses on these. Some of us spend ridiculous amounts of time in front of our computers which makes it easy to respond quickly, but I'd like to see more people talking about more subjects.

Don't get me wrong - I love nothing more than to talk about politics, philosophy, and current events, but none of us are nearly that 1-dimensional and there are literally hundreds of subjects that the people in this blog cover. For example, who but Maura and Dan-O could give us a brother/sister approach on Women's rugby and Ultimate fighting?

Whenever we can, let's give the solid, publishable, fight-to-the-death analysis. At other times, let's write about what we think about when are singing in the shower, taking a shit, or visualizing beautiful mignonettes and tulips in the public gardens.

Best case, this will elicit more writing and responses. Worst case, I wasted 10 minutes and admitted that I enjoy viewing mignonettes. c'est la vie.

-timmy

Re: Food

I agree with Tim except for a couple of points.

1. Outlawing smoking is fine with me since it is such an established health hazard for other people who don't choose to do it. It is comparable to drunk driving, its illegal b/c of what happens to the other person as opposed to perpetrator.
2. Organic food is retarded. The whole movement makes no sense and I can't stand all the fucking support its getting. The biggest effect of not using fertilizer or pesticides is having to use more land to grow the same amount of food. This means further deforestation and depletion of natural resources. If these people understood the consequences of not using whatever pesticides they use, they would realize the positive doesn't outweigh the negative. Also, the fair trade movement is guilty of the same dumbass logic. Farm prices are low because of overproduction...so lets subsidize farmers further, and encourage more production in the process. Brilliant economic policy. Almost as smart as subsidizing ethanol so that the price of every grocery doubles in the next two years.

If you can't tell, the previous few issues fire me up. They're lollipop politics at their best, "here suck on this so that you'll vote for me in 9 months, who gives a shit if this is bad for us in the longrun!"

Voting

I don't believe in "secret ballots," and I'm curious who you will all vote for in the primaries. Since I leave for Sydney tomorrow, I voted by mail today: Giuliani got my primary vote, I voted against additional funding for community colleges, and for legalizing casinos for tribes.

Food

To bring an additional subject to the "politics talk-radio" discussion we're having...

What do you all think about the current "food-politics?"

-Foie gras being banned in Chicago and San Francisco
-Trans fat being banned in NYC
-FDA-approved cloned cows
-Raw milk being outlawed in California
-Smoking bans in restaurants in France and Spain
-EatLocal and Organic movements

1,2,4,5 - I would claim as overreaching by the government. #3 is a bit tougher for me...I don't want it to be illegal, but I don't want to eat it either...will they have "organic clones?"

-Tim

re: Bloomberg

Excellent post, Hodge - my thoughts exactly; although my favorite history teacher said them much more eloquently than I could have.

Also, is Bloomberg even known outside of the business world and cities? I can't see him taking the south. But, states like Colorado, Arizona, Florida - I think he could get as well as many would-be-blue.

Bloomberg

My question is do we really think he can win? I know it matters whom each party selects but we haven't seen a third party take an electoral vote since George Wallace and Strom Thurmond ran on segregationalist platforms, a much more polarizing issue than anything in this election.

Third parties have always run the strongest when they have a single polarizing issue to get behind. Maybe this will be different b/c with Bloomberg's bankroll he can match what either party will spend on the general election if not top it.

I hope he runs and is successful, I'm just not sure if this is a good election for a third party candidate, especially with everyone jumping on the "change" bandwagon now. It will be much harder for him to position himself as the outsider if everyone else is trying to do the exact same thing.

Bloomberg

Hodge, Zac, et. al.,

You'll find this interesting:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/01/michael_bloombe.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_techbeat

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is a very awful thing hidden with good intentions.  No one I know and I feel no one on this blog will say that racism is good.  And affirmative action is racism, in reverse of what it is intended to help.   So if what you want to fix is opportunity then, make it illegal to ask for race on any application that way regardless of color the best person is chosen.   Again don't punish hard work and kids that excel.  If it is the fact that a black from a slum can not prepare like a white upper class kid from Connecticut remember that it is not race that you are trying to fight it is economic privilege, thus make affirmative action not about race but about economic privilege.  To me if someone is saying that affirmative action is good they are saying that it is ok to be racist but only when it helps a minority.  Remember that the kid from the slum can be white and the kid from Connecticut can be black.

Tim I do agree that there are no inherent differences between races, but the are inherently treated differently, as my wife very emotionally pointed out to me tonight.  Her father a wealthy doctor has been pulled over and treated like a drug dealer, because he drives a BMW or because he is black or is that how the cops treat everyone they pull over. I am inclined to believe that the latter is false and the initial two are true.  So this brings up profiling, is it right no, does it happen yes.  Do minorities commit more crimes than the majority yes, but is it a function of societal economics I would argue yes.  Thus profiling is again racist and I don't agree with it.  And you mentioned Jews, Italians and the Irish did make it up the ladder of our society, but what is one common denominator in them, they are all white.

I am at two minds about about race though Tim.  Do I think talking about race all the time i.e elections make race better or helps the situation, no I do not.  But do I think that race can be ignored, no I do not, especially in that I will be having colored kids.  But I will teach my kids that race is not a crutch and to make themselves stand out for their intelligence, drive and dedication.  

Hodge I do agree with you that much of what this comes down to is education, specifically public education.  I think this is one of the most important things my tax money is spent on.  I think we do need to find a better way to fund public schools, and I don't think property taxes is the way to do it.  It is also like you said difficult to get good teachers to work in the bad areas, I do think a subsidy of some sort would help with that, but remember that will bring more teachers not necessarily better teachers.  But a better educated country will do nothing but good for everyone, and that should be one of the highest priorities of all politics, parents and citizens.  

-Zachary

re: Affirmative Action

I want to answer Hodge's argument on Equal Opportunity and Education, but since this is so complex, I want to start with premises and begin with his affinity for affirmative action.

On affirmative action: BAD, BAD, BAD. Affirmative action proponents see it as a means to an end. The problem, however, is the dangerous "means." Yes, on average, whites have it easier than blacks, men than women, blacks than latinos, tall people over short, Japanese over Chinese, Southern Indian (non-Muslim) over Northern Indian (Muslim), etc. There are thousands of sociological theories to these questions, but the fact remains - they exist, and always will. Some groups will just win for a while and maybe they'll switch later (such as the Yankees and the Red Sox).

Á mon avis, the only answer is to stop surveying, studying, and speaking about race. Period. I know this is theoretical/visionary, but pragmatic answers (affirmative action) will only take us so far. We need to recognize that there are NO INHERENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BLACKS AND WHITES. Yes, blacks came over here as slaves until the early 19th century. Yes, they were treated unimaginably awfully in the South up until even the late 20th century. But, let's put things in perspective. Most of our ancestors lived through awful conditions; ghettos consisted of poor Irish and Italians through the 1940s, the Jews came during a holocaust (most without family,) and try to imagine a Mexican running for President of the US this year.

The reason why Italians, Jews, and Irish managed to move up the social ladder and get out of the original ghettos (or at least turning the ghettos into thriving metropolitan areas like Brooklyn, Queens, and New Jersey) is because we don't recognize an inherent difference between them all ANYMORE. At one time, we certainly did, but we can not seem to get over the "black problem." I've always cringed when someone describes a situation (especially dangerous) with a phrase like, "a large black guy."

CNN presidential polls don't poll according to Italian/Irish descent. They don't poll according to tall/short people. Yet, this country is obsessed with knowing how many blacks are voting for Obama and latinos for Hillary. Why can't we just stop caring about polls comparing blacks, latinos, and whites?

Full circle. This all relates to affirmative action, because AA tries to solve a problem (urban schools are piss-poor) with a racial solution (give blacks more help). Urban schools are unthinkably bad for such a great economy, but don't forget about the Serbs, Russians, and even rural-poor farmers who are rushing to the cities. Programs like school vouchers (which I agree with and will be sure to address on a later post) and busing (which I am against as just a "quick-fix" solution that helps very few) are at least using the right mentality.

Urban schools are an urban problem caused by high populations with little management, no accountability, and an economic disincentive for teachers due to high taxes, high rents, and low wages. If the cities were filled with poor whites or Arabs (like in Paris' banlieues), the same problem will exist; this is not a race problem.

-timmy

PS.
Not all blacks "came from" Africa (technically, we all probably came from the Middle East) and there are plenty of white "African-Americans," so I refuse to use that term.

Equality of Opportunity

I didn't intend my comments to be an attack on capitalism in any sense. Having a lower class working for an upper class is a natural result of the system that we have in place and is also a fundamental necessity of it. There is no alternative to this. I meant only to point out that we shouldn't dismiss their relative failure purely to apathy or inadequacy.

This discussion can also be applied to the educational world and as a teacher I would be very interested in hearing some of your comments to my personal philosophy.

I believe it is essential to level the playing field of opportunity. By that I mean that society should attempt to provide an equal opportunity for success to every person. I've had conversations with people who will assault policies like affirmative action as heinous because they aren't rewarding someone who is the most qualified. However, is it really fair to expect someone who came up through inner city public schools to achieve the same standards as someone else whose parents paid $20,000 a year for a private school? I don't think affirmative action is a perfect policy, actually it is far from it, but I think its goals are defensible.

I know what some of you will say to this. In the greater scheme of things this policy does more harm than good b/c it puts less competent people in jobs that should go to someone more qualified, and you know what, from that standpoint you might be right. However, I can live with that fact knowing that this levels the playing field for people who by no fault of their own were put in situations that dealt them a much shittier hand than others were.

I am all for people being able to give their kids the best education possible and if people are willing and able to pay more to ensure a better education (typically by moving to a city with higher property taxes, or paying for a private school) than they should be able to. I believe school choice is the most important thing that can be done to fix American schooling right now. However, so many inner city schools simply cannot provide the most basic education for their students (for many reasons, the biggest of which is poverty) that until we do a better job as a society of leveling the playing field and providing a basic education to these people that we cannot expect them to compete on the same level as other people. Each person that is put into a competitive situation should have a basic level of preparedness for that situation and that doesn't exist in this country right now. Until it does I think we need to provide policies that might seem to be detrimental to people who succeed, but when looked at from the flip side are really only attempting to eliminate the inadequacies of the system (whether they do a good or bad job of it is a whole other question) that attempted to prepare these people for the society they are entering. It might have some negative effects, but the intent is a worthy cause.

One last thing...

I want to recommend HBO's "The Wire" to everyone on this blog. It is easily the best television show I've ever seen and intelligently touches upon many of the issues we have been discussing in the context of a drama about life in inner city Baltimore. It is like a visual novel, and worth purchasing if you are looking for something good to watch in the midst of the writers strike.

Eagerly awaiting your comments,

- Hodges

Taxes, Religion, Ayn Rand

First and very deeply to my heart I would like to compliment Tim on his choice of the name for this blog.  If you have read both of those books you will see that each of those characters are amazing people struggling against (or for depending on your view) the system that is doing nothing to help her and is at most times hindering her.  Seems  much like us today.  Not only that those two characters keep their worlds afloat, despite the fact that they are being dragged down.

Ahh and now to the word selfish.  It just might be my favorite philosophy out there.  I am going to make a small assumption based on how negatively you have used the word Tyler and say that you think it is a terrible thing.  Now let's look at what is positive about being selfish, and use one basic premise that man's greatest goals are to live and to be happy.  Now it bad that a selfish man will spend his time and effort doing the best he can at a job because that money and work makes him happy.  You make the assumption that being selfish means hurting or taking advantage of other, a great smear campaign of the word by religious establishments because to be selfish is to think of yourself, and to think in general about what makes you happy and leading your life in order to aline it with your happiness.  But if being selfish is bad then it is ok that you do not think of yourself first and can be allowed to be lead around like sheep and be told what makes you happy. Now it seems to me that it is not selfishness that is at fault but paucity of thought and lack of enough self-respect to do what makes you happy.  

Now you also stated that with out making others happy we can not be truly happy. That is the most twisted statement of logic I have heard in a long time.  Happiness is a truly personal experience. While you can experience happiness with someone, or by helping someone, it is still something YOU feel.  You can not feel an other's happiness or sadness or what ever feeling they are having.  Feelings like happiness are made by YOUR reactions and morals and actions, so it is within your power to make yourself and yourself only happy.  I have seen a great many people who try to put their happiness in that of others and are miserable, and they are baffled as to why.  They can not understand why they are not happy, they have worked so hard to make others happy.  And I feel that can be changed by my little philosophy above.  That person I just painted is in essence an emotional parasite, unable to create for himself and trying feed off of others.  

You might argue but then where is love I will quote Ayn Rand on this one: "When you are in love, it means that the person you love is a great personal and selfish importance to you and to your life.  If selfless, it would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and  that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person's need of you.  I don't have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kid.  Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values.  It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person"

Hodge you say that say business can not create or be successful with out the workers.  That is true but what is important about that statement is that it CANNOT be reversed.  While the man who started the business can not do all the manual labor, the manual laborer could never create the ideas or processes that allow him to have a job in the first place.  And you all talk about helping others, so lets look how well a person uses a dollar.  You give a laborer 5% tax rebate to help him out, he/she can use that money for what health care, a new car, TV, cigarettes, drugs?  Most of which do not have much help to others.  No you give the business owner an extra 5% off on taxes and what can he create, more jobs, processes that can save time and labor all things to me that seem to have a much wider effect.  The old proverb says don't bite the hand that feeds you, but we seem to think it's ok so long as we chop off the hand.  I do not think that you should cripple the working class with taxes.    

You also say that capitalism in all it's glory still has a lower class working for an upper class.  Now Hodge you understand economics and shouldn't use this as a criticism, by function of any economy regardless of implementation there is always a lower class working for an upper class.  This is because we are not created equally, by privilege, physical prowess and intelligence all of which create gaps and will always create gaps in the classes.  

Now to everyone, I encourage you all to write more, because you never know how solid your morals, ideals and philosophy is until someone challenges it. And challenge is good, so thanks everyone for writing, it helps me, and that selfishness is so so satisfying.  

re: Clean Tech & Ayn Rand

I just realized Tyler left a fantastic, heretical post to the comments section last week. Again, most people won't check the comments section, so comments probably won't be seen unless they're on a very recent post.

I'm sure some of you (especially Zac) will love to see Ty's artful comments on Ayn Rand's characters being "selfish and self-indulgent." Thanks for bringing this up Tyler, I was wondering who would be the first to challenge my title and you can bet your ass on a good defense from me.

Ty said...

Tim,

I'm sorry if this isn't the preferred method of posting. Please, bare with..

I'll preface my thoughts by saying that I admire all of the passionate posts relating to clean tech and politics. These are very important issues. But when I first received the invitation for this blog I was excited to see all of the "eclectic" posts. I just hope more light hearted topics will make their way to this blog in the future. Actually, I'll personally make sure that they do.

I haven't read all of the posts, but in my opinion Hydroelectric energy is the answer to many of our problems. I'm sure advances in this technology are being hindered by other countries for economic reasons. And if not hindered, than at least not contributed to. It just seems obvious that producing energy from water solves many of our problems.

On another note, probably just because I enjoy disagreeing with people, I'm not thrilled with the blog being named after Ayn Rand characters. She has some great ideas but overall her concepts seem selfishh and self indulgent. Doesn't she realize that without making others happy, we can't truly make ourselves happy? I know I'm not the first person to disagree with Ayn Rand, so please let me know the error of my ways.

In the mean time, I wish you all a "shit-ton" of happiness and two "shit-tons" of cheer.

Good Day Mates

January 14, 2008 10:16 PM

re: Religion

This was posted by Gluf on the "comments" section. Amazingly articulate, too bad he can't follow directions and stop posting on the comments section. Seriously though - well said, Mike.

Mike Gluf said...

So this is good....time to get really philosophical...

Before I state my problems with religious establishment, I want to make the point that my religion is that of spiritual common sense and overall belief in yourself. This is what fundamentalists and true believers lack in any religious following. I don't care if you are a jihadist strapping a bomb to your back or an evangelical in the army of Christ speaking in tongues. As Zach pointed out, they lack the sense to question, to consider alternate points of view, which is a very natural process in the human mind. Although I am not quite as much of a nihilist as Nietzsche (just saying his name will I'm sure get some people involved in this discussion), I do agree that the world is completely fluid and ever changing. It is filled with discovery which makes it very difficult to pin down the truth sometimes. Sometimes even difficult to write down when your mind is much more fluid then your words. Much of religious thought is ignorant to this, instead focusing on one unchanged ideal. Somehow you are supposed to turn off your natural curiosity and see only whets put in front of you, they call it faith.

Having said that, there is nothing I see wrong with and respect the positive values many religions preach: love, friendship, discipline, happiness. The line is crossed when many religions contradict the values they preach by calling for wars in the name of God; effectively throwing common sense out the window. When you think of this type of thought making its way to Washington and affecting national decisions its scary. In general any misuse of religious influence is where the real danger is (here comes the Nietzsche).

Nietzsche said the will to power is what drives everything in the universe. The will to grow, strengthen, and possess true freedom. The earliest religous leaders said to themselves, "Hey, we can tell people they have to suffer in the name of God their whole lives. They should be poor, weak and average. They should ignore their will to power and never try to advance themselves in life. Embrace mediocrity, guilt, chastity, and humble before God. As a reward they will go to heaven and live like kings (you'll even get 40 virgin women if you are an Islamic man)."
So your telling me all I need to do is become a slave to God my whole life, and I will get to bang 40 hot chicks when its over? The people accepted this from the leaders because it was easy! Do what your told and it will all work out for you when you die. Its easy to sacrifice power and strength (things that require hard work to obtain) in REAL LIFE (the only life we know for sure) for rewards in your metaphysical life....and of course in your life here on earth you'll never rise to the level of the leaders. The leaders were exercising their own will by suppressing the masses and keeping power for themselves. So do I believe in ideology that was shaped by rewarding weakness and mediocrity in order for a select few to have power and influence over the many? Absolutely not. My question is why have centuries of people bought into this? The major religions in this world are extremely deep rooted institutions. That's a lot of guilt built up over a long time.

On a lighter note-
We shouldn't really have a problem as most of us are all very concerned with advancement of our own lives, and we engage in good discussion. I think we'll be ok its the rest of this crazy world to worry about. Especially Tom Cruise and the Scientologists. (Sounds like an 80's synth band).

I also want to say that part of my religion is beer, because it makes me happy. I have a lot of fun and love everyone when I drink it so give me one reason why my religion shouldn't involve beer?

January 18, 2008 3:27 PM

RE: Taxes

I think we need to consider the fact that often times people are more "successful" than others for reasons that have nothing to do with competence or ability. How many "successful" people do you know that got where they are today due to factors beyond the two mentioned above?

I agree that we need a society and government that encourages people to excel and that part of excellence is creating wealth. But I think we would be remiss and irresponsible to cast aside the lower classes and place a disproportionate burden on them. Part of the reason why rich people get rich is that they have people who in some capacity or another work for them and help to generate that wealth at a relatively low cost. To dismiss their relative "failure" and punish them for it is irresponsible as well.

Marx's criticisms of capitalism were dead on. His proposed solutions are impractical, as has been proven over the course of the last century. However, capitalism for all its glory, does produce a lower class that in essence works for the upper class. This inequity cannot be explained away by mere ability and ambition (although it is a part of it). Therefore, I don't believe that a society can justify having taxes, or anything else for that matter, that is blatently worse for the lower classes than the upper classes.

I suppose this also touches on the religious discussion a few posts before this one. For all of its faults one of the few things about organized religion that I can still appreciate is that for the most part they teach a morality that most people can appreciate and seems genuinely beneficial. This is not to say that I have no qualms with organized religions and their "moralities" but I think as a general statement most of us could agree that we would like to be treated nicely and that having a world of people who cared about others more than themselves wouldn't be a bad thing, which is what most major religions preach (among other things, many of which I have a problem with).

I suppose my point with all of this rambling is that I think we need a society that values competition as a means to success and wealth. However, with all competion there are losers. I don't think it is responsible or practical to cast the losers aside and dismiss their failure to incompetence or laziness (although many people fail for those reasons). The haves have a responsibility to some extent for the have nots, for without them, they don't exist either. What extent is a whole different question for another time.

Im not sure any of this made sense, I've been drinking. If this is a rambling mess I sincerely apologize.

- Hodges

Taxes

I just had an great albeit heated discussion about taxes and how they work, and I guess our cores of philosophy.

Briefly one view says that people should not be treated differently by the government because of class or position, in this cases taxes. That a person making 10k should be taxed the same percentage as a person making 1000k. In that if you look at total benefit the latter person is going to be helping a lot more people thus net benefit for the whole is greater (not that is important but it is a way to quantify). Calling this View A

The other view states that people should be treated differently by the government, because we are not equal, i.e the person making 10k should be taxed less than the person making 1000k. In that the person making 1000k will be able to be taxed a higher amount until his actual life is affected by the taxation, thus he should be taxed more. In essence the lower income earner is going to feel the weight of a 5% tax much more heavily than the person making the higher income. Calling this View B.


So my opinion is in favor of View A. While the higher income person is making more money and paying the same percent in taxation they are still paying more money than someone making less money. Even though the higher income individual may not feel it as much, he still does, and he is still being treated differently because he/she is excelling. I mean what kind of world do we live in where excellence is punished(this one I guess). And I do not at all feel that a person should be punished, or persecuted i.e paying more taxes because they do well in a financial world. That to me is entirely backwards. It like saying hey you not doing as well, but your doing much better why not give me some of what you have so I can do better just because your doing better. Why is lower income, poorer health, less intelligence, a blank check on the opposite of those three.

Going to back to the religious argument earlier, I think the greatest thing we have is free will and free choice. And to me taking that away is the greatest crime that can be committed. Now to commit that atrocity because someone is not as good, is to me even more heinous if that is possible.

I guess the core of my argument, is no person situation holds a blank check on me. That we are individuals, even though we are part of a collect system, and should be allowed to act as individuals so long as it does not encroach and the individuality of another. My core principals are inflexible or so I think, so if you see that they are not please poke holes in them so I can fix them

I am curious to hear your arguments on this especially on the difference in taxation, such as people be taxed more or less, because they feel the burden of taxation differently. And I know many of you only believe in basic taxes, but we are going to have taxes that is a given so please do not use the premise of no taxes as part of an argument (unless it's really good).

-Zachary

The Blog

First, I want to remind you all that this blog is private (i.e., you can't Google it) and even if it wasn't, you should feel free to write what you think - that's the benefit of not living in China.

I'm fortunate enough to know some of the smartest people, however a significant amount of them haven't responded to an issue that I KNOW is dear to their heart and they have very well-thought-out opinions (e.g., Religion from Rachel, DanO, Katie, and Hila.) I must say, however, that I'm delighted to see Zac and Maura in such an intellectually stimulating disagreement

Let's face it, the intelligence in places like Hershey, Worcester, and Newton don't quite compare to the virtual geography we have with this blog.

Let's try to keep this going. It's such a waste to humanity to let our great ideas fall by the wayside. Just imagine the world if the Chinese philosophers could have a blog with the French Enlightenment and the "Revolutionaries" in the US back in the 18th Century...

Zac - I love the image, nice touch

love always,
-timmy

Religion

Maura the above picture is what you have described religion to be.

As for Tim your statement of the Koran is correct that statement is the second one to discuss violence, the first statement on violence when the prophet was first getting followers was one of tolerance and non-violence. Then after he gained power he said that it was right to fight if it was for religion. These statments are contridictory and it has been a struggle of the faith of which one to believe, the one most accepted is that what was written later overrides what is written early. Convievent or as Maura would say flawed, to me it seems like using something to get your own means.

I do agree with Maura religion is flawed, has and most likely will always be. And I think the fact that religion if it is the source of understanding and the way to what ever afterlife you believe in, it shouldn't be fluid, it should be firm, or else it becomes the picture I put on top something people turn to when they can't stand on their own beliefs, acts and decisions. Also disecting religion or beliefs is what makes it so great to be human. We can reason we can discuss argue, we can THINK and question. And if a religion is afraid of that, then they do no subscribe to being human, and I don't understand why anyone would wants to follow that. Religion should not fear inquiries, questions, challenges. If it is as great as they all say then it will stand, as the put it, a rock that will weather any storm. But through history I only seen them try to weather the storm with denial and boycotts. (modern examples, The Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, the Golden Compass Priests and little boys, more historical, the Inquistion, various genocides, the persucution of Newton)

If you don't think religion is to be discredited, that is ok but say that for a reason and give an arugment. Look at the history or religion and what was done it its name, the milions killed, enslaved and worse. That divided causes people to be wary of anyone from the middle east sitting beside them on a plane. And yes it may not be relgion that has caused this it is the people, but the people acting on the words of faith, and its teachings have sanctioned it and that is the destructive power of religion.

Now Maura please reply I did not intend to scare you off this blog, if you can tear apart my arugment I very much encourage you to do so, but with logic please I don't speak faith.

Tim, I love the way your arugments always end with a reason, and a reference it is why I love to discuss, argue with you.

-Zachary

re: Religion

I know, you're all shocked to see me writing on religion...

First, to clear up Zac's misunderstanding of the Qu'ran. Although there is much debate on the exact translation from Arabic, it is almost universally accepted that, "God/Allah is the one true power and if you fight in his name, you will be closer to 'heavan.'" Here is another widely accepted verse:
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2:216).

Let there be no misunderstanding, all three of the major monotheistic religions (which all originated with Judaism) have text which puts believers above non-believers (infidels.)

Now, as an atheist who is fascinated with religion, I agree with both Maura and Zac. First, I agree with part of Zac's premise. As far as we know, before the Jews, the strong-people ruled the world (Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, etc.) The Jews (and later Christians) strongly believed, and more importantly, wrote down the benefits of being "lower than God" which many people take for granted now. I think this does cause a problem because it makes survival words like "selfish," "confident," and "opinionated" appear "anti-humanity."

I also agree with Maura; the problem doesn't lie in modern religion. In fact, people have always (at least since recorded history) believed in a higher power. This was especially true for the Romans and Greeks with their powerful gods to which they "poured libations" and "sacrificed" almost daily.

Enough background, here is my opinion:
Religion isn't a problem in itself. It has always been a way to justify people's actions and a great reason to take people's land (If you disagree, please see: the Reconquista, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, modern Jihad, the Byzantine Empire, the colonization of Africa, and Palestine.) The problem, instead, is actually the "religious establishment," aka, churches, fatwas, the Pope, and Supreme Ayatollahs who lead groups of people to do things against their personal interest. Let's face it, war is very rarely in the person's interest who is fighting it. This "leadership" causes people to blindly follow someone whom they believe has "divine power" and ignore their normal, rational belief system.

If people want to believe in something higher, e.g., Athena, Allah, or Mother Nature, then that shouldn't affect the entire world. The difficulty is when they do unethical (according to their non-religious beliefs (i.e., Darwinist) like declare war on the non-believing world (Jihad) or use their religion to take over land (Palestine/"occupied territories"/"holy land.")

Sorry, this is a little convoluted because I have so much I want to say. I'll leave it at this for now.

-tim

Re: religion

Ok, I'll give this a try. I completely understand and even agree with some of your observations Zach. I agree that the state of medicare/medicaid, welfare, etc. is rediculous. Our system is backwards, and in some areas punishes those who are working (and/or legal citizens..but thats for another topic) However, I think that though religion is flawed that it is not the root of all these problems. The third beatitude says"blessed are the meek for they shall possess the earth," but the sixth talks about the "pure of spirit"...which I think we can agree all but exists in the public and state of this nation (of course there are exceptions to that, I'm generalizing) Though it is convenient to blame problems that we have as a nation on religion, I think that the argument is flawed. All religion is flawed. If religion were perfect, I don't believe that it could have survived for centuries and through different cultures. These contradictions and flaws allow for religions (whichever one) to adapt and and grow with the societies they cater too.
That being said, I believe that dissecting religion and religious beliefs is a problem. Religion is about faith and direction in one's life. Call me silly or idealistic, but religion is important in a person's life. Even if your religion is made up of only your individual beliefs, everyone needs something to believe in. Having unwaivering faith in some sort of G(g)od or belief system gives you the ability to believe in everything else.
There are many places to point blame these days and many things deserve to be discredited, but I don't think religion is one of them.
-maura

WTFRD (What The Fuck is Religion Doing)

A little preface, I have been taking a class on the origin of western thought and another on religion. And one it goes through the Greeks and their pursuit of greatness (Arety) and that being the best in men, to Rome where duty to Rome is the best in men, to Christianity. My thought has been if you look at a lot of what we see today that we don't agree with. I think alot of what has been issued especially in out blogs is because of Christianity. The poor and"underprivileged" are held in higher esteem than our leaders of business, which seems reminiscent of a message of Mark (one of Jesus's apostles) the meek shall inherit the earth.That line of teaching has caused our government to give money to the elderly, start welfare, start social security, medicare, medicade, to keep big business under their thumb to let the 'meek' survive in business.

Now I don't want it to seem like I'm knocking Jesus to much, I have been reading a lot of religious stuff lately and the more I read the more I find that Jesus was anti-Establishment, very feminist and barely at all what I see represented in the christian church today. I appears that Jesus could have a serious Tort case on his hand if he did return to earth as it was foretold.

Another thing about the Koran and the words of Mohamed, it seems contradictions run wild in their books as well, the most popular one being that it is great to kill infidels. It is odd that earlier in his teachings he taught to harm another was the worst thing you could do. He was teaching that when he just a prophet and not a leader of a city, later when he became leader of the city and needed to defend it conveniently it switched to it is great to kill non-believers.The pattern I see, is that give a religion power and it corrupts almost to the core, and well that is also what I see going on with the American government today. Whether it is religion overtones, society, or human nature I'm not sure but one common denominator is Power. Or as Ayn Rand would say the perception or illusion of Power, of which unsurprisingly I agree with her.

Many of you may think that hey maybe Jews have it right, they are mostly non-violent, they really haven't corrupted government. But they are one major religion that has not had a nation of their own, and have been oppressed for most all of their existence, so in other words don't rule them out they haven't been given a chance.Now it's not that I'm per say against religion but I will say I'm sure as hell (no pun intended) against them having anything to do with power, influence or money.

As history and current events have shown I think religion may do more damage than good. But who are we to listen to current events or god (man those puns come quick) forbid history I mean it is not like they repeat themselves.

Please let me know your thoughts, I'm very curious to hear

re: Registered Independents

Thank you, Jill & Zac - I stand corrected (see how much we learn with blogs!!)

I think this is a good system, and I was unaware CA or MA took part in it. I guess I didn't do enough research when I registered 6 years ago (or maybe they changed it - I don't know.)

I do, however, still like to be a registered Republican. Yes, I am "locking" into a party, but that is similar to joining any group. You believe in the ideals (or supposed ideals) and you work with your group/team/party to a) elect a candidate that will stand by those ideals and b) find others who agree with you to strengthen your team/group/party.

Republicans, sadly, are now split. There are "family Republicans," who focus on family values (i.e., ones who wish gays and atheists didn't exist) and there are "fiscal Republicans/Reagan Republicans," who focus on lower taxes and less government funding.

Waaaayyyy back, however, when Thoreau was writing Walden - Americans envisioned a "true Republican," which I will describe as one who believes she is self-sufficient, in control, and capable of surviving with minimal help from others. The pros/cons of public education, military, etc. can be debated, but the idea is to have a party that believes "IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES an individual is smart enough and capable to survive without a government."

-Tim

Re: Registered Independants

Tim, I wanted to point out that as an unaffiliated voter in California, I may still vote in the primary elections. California currently has a "modified" closed primary system. Voters registered with a specific party can only vote for candidates in that party. Voters who are registered as Decline to State (the equivalent to Independent in other states) can participate in the primary elections if the specific party allows it.

For example, in the 2004 presidential primary election, the Democratic, Republican and American Independent parties allowed Decline to State voters to participate in their primaries. The downside to this system is that not all parties allow unaffililated persons to vote. In the upcoming election on February 5, only the Democratic and American Independent parties are permitting those registered as Decline to State vote.

As a side note, if I am reading the chart correctly that I found on the California Secretary of State website (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/60day_presprim/hist_reg_stats.pdf), there are 35 counties with a majority of Republican voters and only 23 with a majority of Democratic voters; it's an interesting statistic as California is known to be so liberal.

I also know that in Massachusetts, you can be registered as "Unenrolled" (same as Decline to State or Independent) and participate in the presidential primary election. On election day, you must register with a party when you walk into the polling place. You can then unregister with that party and regain Unenrolled status on your way out. Essentially, all the workers do is mark which party's ballot you receive.

Many states do have closed primary systems and I would agree that in those states, it is better to register with a party even if you don't fully agree with its positions.

Registered Independents

This is a counter argument to Tim's urge to have everyone join a party. I'll offer a counter point in that by registering for a party you are locking yourself into a two party system and it can keep the candidates inside the box. But as an independent it makes the candidates work for their money (votes in this case). They don't know how your voting and they just don't focus on their party because lets face it neither extreme of the either parties are ok, but the hybrids of they system are the best in my opinion.
But I do agree with Tim you should definatly vote in the primaries. You can't bitch that you don't like the candidates at the big election if you didn't participate in the primaries.
I actually have a question, how do you guys feel about defensive voting? I.e I would never vote dem. but I vote for obama cause I would rather lose a nut that have Clinton in the office.

Apple

This one is for Katie:

http://www.news.com/1606-2-6226299.html?part=dht&tag=nl.e433

The new apple laptop fits inside an envelope.

Mike, sorry I told you to sell your Apple stock last year...

re: Clean Tech

Perfect thinking Tim. I agree %100 on all points. Clean tech as most consumers think is bullshit. Currently its an less efficient version of oil that is fun and trendy to tell your friends that you purchase wind credits or that you drive a prius. With the exception of the rich and the trendy, people aren't going to pay a premium just for "green". In fact, lets even toss out the term "clean tech" and bring in the term "energy efficient tech" (EET). EET will be companies that offer not just oil alternatives, but rather high energy bill alternatives. Its all about economic incentive, hence your Google example. As of now, the industry is extremely young and is filled with "shit-ton" of bogus business plans. First solar P/E of 200! I think not. I challenge you to find a US wind energy stock trading over $2... However as oil prices rise due to an increase in world energy demand, like in China and in developing nations and not just the US, Companies will and have started looking for a more efficient way to fill their energy needs. We're looking for companies that fill that need, not just clean tech. We need companies that can offer the Googles of the world serious energy savings in the form of energy efficient technology. That could come in the form of highly efficient solar panels installed on roofs, it could be more energy efficient building materials, or it could be energy meters that help companies understand exactly how their energy is being used. Hell the real technology might not even exist yet, but it is coming. It has to come because like you said there is a huge economic incentive to lower energy bills. Lets find those companies. I have a sneaking suspicion that EET companies will come from Silicon valley.


Regards,

Mike Perna

re: San Fran Health Care

On the San Fran health care system and socialized medicine in general.

This is going to make a rat race for higher wages due the higher cost of goods that companies are forcing due to the fact that they are forced to provide health care.

If that slips its going to be a death blow to the government.
The real question that needs to be asked is who is not covered by the health care system.
Mainly it is health people in their 20s who don't need the coverage in the first place.
The poor and helpless who always catch the headlines are covered by state and ferderal polices.
It is like the argument for higher minimum wage it never helps who they are trying to help and always hurts the middle class who they never say the are try to hurt.

I would like to point to the arogance of the american leaders, in that they never learn from neighbors and history.
One we tried to stop the domino effect of communism and ended up in the vietnam war, who results are still a kick in the balls. Then again we tried to start the domino effect of democracy in the middle east, the results another kick in the balls.
Thirdly there is not a socialized medicine program working in the world they are all flowndering if not sinking and yet her we go again thinking we can do and san fran. and mass. are doing their own. Stupidity is the leader of this country and state.
-Zachary

Registered Independents

There can be a lot of debate on whether a 2 party system works well (if you are vehemently opposed to only 2 parties, start reading about multiparty processes in Asia and Africa and you may change your mind.)

I want to know why you (Hodge, Gluf, Saunak) are not registered voters for the primaries. You're giving up a chance to vote where it actually counts (especially in our states - CA, MA, RI - that will go blue regardless of our votes.) At least by being a registered Dem or Rep, you'll be able to have a say in the party leader. Just because you're a registered Rep, doesn't mean you can't vote Dem, Green, Libertarian, etc. in the General Election.

You should all change your voting status and join a party, regardless if you fully believe in that party's ethos.

-Tim

Posting

I didn't even notice we had such a lively discussion going on when I said we shouldn't use the "comments" section. The reason I think we should not use it is that if we want to comment on a far earlier post, it won't be noticed because most of us will only look at the 5-7 most recent posts. If you disagree, let me know.

re: Clean Tech

A couple points I would like to comment on is that there is no immediate climate problem. You are wrong, the oceans levels are rising there is a increasing size of a whole in the ozone layer, climate levels are off and it is just starting to snowball. And the change will start to increase in speed hence the snowball comment above.
I agree firm economics have to take part in making the change, and that is a responsiblity of both the consumers and the producers.
And it is happening, they are finding electric cars more powerful than stand alone combustion engines, and so forth it will be a slow process but changes are happening.
I will also be looking for shit-ton in the new dictionary, I'll keep my fingers crossed that it makes it.
Also I think alot of companies are using green to inspire consumer and investment confidence in their companies, because green is the word of the future and if a company is using it, then they are hoping to spur growth.
-Zachary

Re: 11 out of 21

Timmy I'm honored to have been invited, I always knew you secretly knew I had some intelligence. And for your information I have become pretty good at avoiding all geographical situations so most people will never know my weakness. This is my post for now...cuz quite frankly i'm a little lost on the rest of this blog haha. don't judge. i'll save my commentary for fun things, drug related issues, or maybe an occasional moment of brilliance I have.
mookey

11 out of 21 - Not Bad

11 people signing up in the first 2 days is actually better than I expected. Especially since I know some of the invitees don't use a computer...

1 Important thing that I forgot to mention. Since we have a lot of bankers and a lot of people in corporate finance, we can not talk about specific companies on this blog (e.g., Google, Bank of America, Goldman, State Street) unless you're just referencing them.

Stylistically, when (if) you respond to a post, don't hit "reply." Instead, just write a new post with "re: xxx" so others can follow the conversation easier.

I've had 6 calls and emails telling me this is a great idea, yet not a single post... (and yes, Mookie - I think you're smart...as long as we don't talk about geography.)

D&D

Of the 25 people invited (4 had outdated email addresses,) I estimate 18 will click the link. Of the 18, 4 will post, and 2 will post regularly (not including myself) but I think this could be really interesting especially for those of us way across the country who don't get to hear you everyday and miss each other dearly.

I have posted the latest emails I received. Hopefully this will start things off...

If you don't get the reference of D&D, you may have received the email in error. Please disregard any information and comply with the confidentiality agreement. Thank you.

re: Clean Tech

ok. I haven't bought in yet.

Everyone is saying "clean energy..." BusinessWeek said it was the "thing of 08." This is like saying the Internet was the "thing of 99." Do these companies really have solid business plans? Is this just an eco-wave thing?

Let's face it, there's no immediate climate problem, so are people going to buy things that may or may not help the environment. Personally, I'm all for saving the environment. The difference however: I will buy a Prius for $25k. Would I buy it for $45k? No fuckin way. Most companies right now are so focused on "being green," that they're not understanding the economics.

Google is extremely interested in "green" because we use a shit-ton of energy. One of our biggest expenses are electricity bills for our giant datacenters storing this email and everything else on the web. We have a huge economic incentive.

Toyota is extremely interested because they found a way to make a shitton of money by making an extremely efficient car.

I wouldn't consider either of these companies "green" or "clean tech." But these are the companies that use economically-intelligent clean energy to make a shit-ton of money.

I only looked at a few of the ones on the spreadsheet. And none of them mentioned "shit-ton." I want to see a company with a solid business plan who uses "clean tech" to make them a step above everyone else. Buying "clean-tech" is like shorting oil. Are you ready to do that?

Sorry, the passion may have stemmed from the amount of wine consumed tonight, but I think I got my point across.

-timmy

Clean Tech

I've shared a document with you called "Clean Tech":
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pMBKH6ZDO6KkTrCAnqQ42DQ&inv=inglistim@gmail.com&t=1314276366184221191&guest

It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this document, just click the link above.

Tim,

This is a composite list of Clean Tech Companies from the Wilderhill
Clean Energy Index, the Clean Edge Index and the Guiness Atkinson
Alternative Engergy Fund. Add any info you see fit and help me start
to narrow it down to companies to research in depth.

-Mike

re: Presidents

zac & hodge:

On Obama:

The longer I am out here, the more I realize how much of an international world we really live in. Korea has a higher percentage of people online than the US. Baidu is much more powerful in China than Google is in the US. On average, Indians perform 2x as good, for 1/2price in almost every industry. China owns 70% of US public debt.

What happened to the US? 50 years from now, we will look back on the past 8 years and we won't talk about Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Dick Cheney, or even Israel/Palestine. We're going to talk about the quick and immediate demise of the US. Now that Rome has fallen, we don't talk about the miscellaneous scandals of the time, we talk about how they failed to understand how the world was changing. Yes, I will debate with you on this Hodge.

Yes, Zac. The economy does change. The winners ride the change and the losers let it slip away (read: China under Mao, Persia under the Ayatollahs, France under quasi-socialists.)

The Republicans today are not ready to step up and secure a foothold for the US. We're no longer running world policy (see: Darfur, Climate Change, World Trade.) We barely even have a say anymore. This world will be run by companies, whether you like it or not (more than it already is) and we need to support the Dagnys, Franciscos, Hanks, and Howards who support US businesses and technology to ride the economic wave. My votes go to: Bloomberg (sorry Hodge, I left him out intentionally, but I'm glad you brought it up), then Giuliani, then Obama.

Here's a breakdown:

• Socialized health care will be awful. Eliminating stem cell research will be worse.
• Taxes really hurt our economy. But, they're nothing compared to what our economy will look like without Mexican immigrants.

A great republican (Greenspan, B.Franklin) is much better than a great democrat (Kennedy.) However, the worst republican (read: Huckabee, Bush) is not better than an intelligent, driven, person with leadership skills and an understanding of how the world works (contrary to Bush who is living in his bible-bubble.)

Love always,
timmy

re: Presidents

Timmy, et al.

First off Tim I'm glad you started this e-mail, so I
want to address some of the points that were
considered.
I want to address Tim's concerns causes the first 2
are important to me and they broadly cover my
concerns.
And Tim I can see why you like Obama, but he is a
democrat and those freedoms that was your number one
concern will be ok but they will be fiscally raped.
I think getting a strong economy will be allowing time
elapse, the economy is fluid, and the Dems really
fight that, and the Reps aren't helping much as well
either. In time we will either bounce back or our
economy will evolve.
I agree we need a strong leader, the american public
and thus our economy needs that. The are like
retarded sheep in that way.
As to who I like I would support Rudy if he wins the
seat, he is a hybrid of Dems and Reps and that I think
is what is needed. I agree with you tim about Paul, I
don't like the isolationism either, but he is
definetly not going to the seat, but the liberatarian
party is trying to get them to run under them.
The rest of the Reps are not that great either, and
their religion pulls will never allow me to vote for
them.
As for the Dems I agree Obama is a strong figure and
would do well to lead the sheep but I think he is
other than a figure head a bad candidate. Tim you did
not like isolationism that is really what he is
proposing with punishing american companies for
exporting labor, and increasing tarriffs. And his
health care plans are going to do to us in 50 years
what social security is doing to us know. A larger
and larger percentage of americans are going to be
over the age of 65 and they are the largest consumeris
of health care, which is going to do to america as a
whole what happened to Ford on a smaller scale.
Obama and the rest of the Dems talk about decreasing
the budget and scaling back spending. But the ALL
talk about all the programs they will add, and they
are numerous, and how they will cut programs to make
up for it, but notice they never speak of a program to
cut just add and that to me translates to higher taxes
and more government interferance.
I think one of the major problems with what we are
currently facing is a lack of choices, our bipartisan
democracy is choking of american ideals( if they are
not already dead). So my vote is going to be to a
lesser party probally the libs, but who knows what
else I may find.
The saying goes if your not part of the solution you
are part of the problem and thus I will not be voting
for one of the two main parties, I think the
candidates are terrible over all, and thus they will
not get my vote.
Most of you have been pretty silent, so mabye your not
thinking about, but start, and take action you are all
the movers of the world so fucking step up to the
plate.

Cheers
Zachary

re: Presidents

I'm still holding out hope that bloomberg will run. He's my boy. Hopefully the two major parties nominate lesser candidates and Bloomberg will jump in as a 3rd party candidate.

Timmy, I can't believe you would ever vote for Obama, he is about 7 miles left of your spot on the spectrum. I don't even know if I could vote for Obama, now thats saying something.

- Hodgie

Presidents

hi all,

I decided to tell you all who I am voting for, in case anybody gives a shit; maybe I can even spark a debate and get you all to agree with me so my preferred candidate wins.

My main concern over the next 4 years are:
1. Freedom for me (timmy)
2. Live in a strong US economy
3. Freedom for others (US immigrants, Sudanese, Congolese)

On top of these 3, we need a strong leader that will make us proud of our heritage and the country we grew up in (especially when traveling.)

As a registered Republican in CA, I will vote for Rudy in the primaries. I like Ron Paul's ideas (and flair,) but his protectionist/isolationist policies are going to put the US economy in a tailspin that we may never recover from. He will probably end major trade agreements, take us out of NATO, and deeply harm the world economy (notably the US.)
The other Republicans are too far up each others' asses to speak about policies. They're all super-religious and want to big giant walls around the US (or at least send half our military to Arizona and New Mexico.) I have yet to hear one logical argument at a debate.
Rudy traditionally has been very good to immigration, which is why NYC's economy did so well under his tenure. Romney called NYC a "sanctuary city" for Mexicans. I think that's a good thing. Rudy is also a businessman who understands what makes people and countries thrive. Above all, (and not just for 9/11,) he's a strong leader.

Now for the president.
Due to the reasons above, I will vote for Rudy if he is nominated. If he is not, I will vote democrat (that's the first time I have ever written that phrase down...)- for Barack Obama. Obama is the change that the US really needs right now. He's young, energetic, and a very intelligent person. A US version of Sarkozy in a way, which I think will cause him to get in some of the same difficulties as NS (making changes too fast, becoming over-involved in other countries' affairs) but he may do more good than harm. Him against Rudy though and I'll stick with Rudy because he will give us more freedom. Obama will raise taxes and wants socialized health care, as do all the democrats which will be very harmful to everyone.

Why Obama gets the nod over all other Republicans: In short, I think basing policies on religious beliefs (read: Bush, Thompson, Huckabee) is more dangerous than even socialized health care.

If anyone read this, I'm curious who you plan on voting for (especially if there are any registered Dems) for the primaries and election.

Love Always,
-timmy

re: SF Health Care

"Otherwise avoidable human suffering, illness and possibly death will result if a stay is denied," Judge William Fletcher said in the 3-0 decision."

Such bullshit. Do these people understand economics at all?????

This is what will really happen: Restaurants will close. Landscapers will cease working. Instead of having a job with no health care, people will have no job and no health care. Thank you Mr. Schwarzenegger & Fletcher. Wait until you see the unemployment rate in 5 years...then count the "suffering, illness, and death"

Thanks for the article & getting me fired up! I miss these conversations.

-timmy

SF Health Care

i hate this. i need to move out of sf. i'm definitely not paying for people who don't live in sf but only work here

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/10/MNQIUC2V1.DTL

-Jill

re: Ayn Rand & Wine

Timmy

It is really great to hear that my favorite fictional
character of all time is still inspiring change in
people. As a side note I have seen that last year Ayn
Rand sold more books than in any year previous!
My question to you is do you agree with that person?
I know we have talked about it a while back and you
were all for taking advantage of a system if it allows
you to, but that is not what this person is saying.
What do you think Ayn Rand says about that, I feel she
goes with the old saying "if your not part of the
solution your part of the problem".
If you agree with that, then my question goes over to
current events, why vote for one of the two big
candidates and not some other third party?

Personally I am starting to come around to support the
afore mentioned quote. But I am trying to figure out
the detials. For instance, what parts of government
services do I use? Am I more entilted to use them
with out breaking the quote (i'll refer to it as a
more base) since I am a government employee and thus
it would be like me working for google and using their
refund to help me get an eco friendly car. Cause I
support the car part but when it comes to goverment
things like cheeper car insurance, very low interest
loans I am stand offish about using them.

Anyway let me know what you think. And Tim, we need
to eventually end up in the same city, apart are
potentials are limitless but in the same city to
bounce of ideas and philosophy, the potentials are
infinite.

In pursiut of Aretay
Zachary

Ayn Rand & Wine.com

zac,

I find it a travesty that we haven't talked about one of our heroes lately. To my unanticipated delight, however, I saw a post on one of the wine websites I frequent regarding Wine Interstate Shipping Laws (it's illegal to ship interstate to 29 states due to archaic bullshit laws), which brought her back to life.

Here's the post:

Well, Mr. Bergsund, here is what you have managed to immediately accomplish if you are still monitoring this blog. I have just cancelled an $11,000+ order to wine.com that I still was not through completing and I will no longer be ordering any wine from your business in the future, and I order a LOT of wine. Additionally, I have contributed $1,000 to the Specialty Wine Retailers Association in order for them to combat the laws that you are so cleverly using to punish your competition. If there are any of you who feel the same way, go to the SWRA website and contribute as well.

If you are really serious that you are "as frustrated with state laws as you(we) are", then match my donation to the Specialty Wine Retailers Association so that we can create a level playing field the "American Way", rather than conducting a sting operation against other internet wine retailers.

Your preferred way, apparently, is the way many businesses circumvent a level playing field by getting legislatures to pass laws favoring certain businesses or by crippling others. It is clear that you have not been involved in passing laws of this nature, but it appears to me that you are certainly willing to take advantage of the ones that are on the books rather than assisting in eliminating these types of laws to the benefit of the consumer.

If anyone has a hard time following my previous logic, do a Google search on Ayn Rand and, more specifically, John Gault.

cheers! (in both senses),

-timmy