Occupy Occupy Occupy.

Here's a roundup of Occupy Links I might want at some point later:

The Revolution, live.

On the subject of The Books.

The Feed, updating.

You don't really have to ask whether or not I am in support of this whole thing, do you? When I have kids, I want them to know that this happened, and that I was for it. I'll probably be ashamed, on some levels, that I wasn't there, in zucotti park, with everyone else.

Trinity Church's article.

Now I go to do some thinking.

Occupied America Welcomes You.

These links are stolen from this post, and well... watch them. I think they're Good.



And



And Some Curious and Oh yeah, Apathy's always been a problem! Scenarios and Some predictable scoffing at the freaking out by the Super-Rich over being called on their bullshit.

And now, I tell you why I don't mind that the #OccupyWallStreet (et al) movement doesn't seem to have a coherent message. You see, neither has the Left, for any real amount of time now. Even through the Obama campaign, the message was pretty much, "Something's Gotta happen now/Something's Gotta Give," with no indication of what that Something ought to be. Because we all had different ideas, and part of the character of the left is at least trying to respect the differences in those ideas, at least as far as what we ought to focus on.

The problem with that, while it is ideologically correct, is that it makes it damn hard to have anything to sink your teeth into, and get excited about.

Enter #OccupyWallStreet, the Left-in-Microcosm: confused, unfocused, desperate, eager, willing to be loud, and ultimately wanting it to be over so we can go home and get back to doing things we'll enjoy. The point isn't to be the message. It's to hold up the problem so that the responses will generate something we can stand behind, and shout to the rooftops. It's a roundabout way to get at the generation of a message, but has anything else worked? And if this doesn't work, it's just one more try, and at least a wonderfully visible one.

For my part, I'll continue to send pizza and bagels to the protesters, and hope it continues-- at least, until it's no longer needed.

On Plutocracy, Anarchy, and bitterness.

If Socialist is going to be a bad word, I want Objectivist to be a word at least as bad. Objectivist and Plutocrat should be synonymous with Anarchist, in the way that I see conservative blogs conflating Socialism and Fascism. Yeah, Dichotomy. Yeah, how the worm turns. But look here-- we have right-wingers shredding government past the point of Monarchy-- who wants monarchs? No one. And they're managing to skirt around Fascism even, except in the case of religious politics, because a non-secular government can't help it. One Faith = One Party is kind of... accidentally mandatory. But that's another shade of teal deer.

I am here today because I am bitter as all hell. The tear-down of government-- as a tyrant, as restrictive, as evil and thieving-- angers me deeply. Who is making this argument? Would-be Plutocrats who are convincing those of us who are a little-bit successful that the Government is trying to rule and run our lives for us.

No, not ours. Yours. Why? Because you can afford to run our lives, and Government is there to stop you. So what do you do? You forment near-anarchy, because you know you'll be able to buy your way out of it. You're plugging for the pure economic tyranny of the USSR, except instead of the State, wealth and the Plutocrat will be revered. You are holding up as an idol the spectre of "Success".

I don't think that word means what you want us to think it means.

Anyway. I need to make another post here-- a personal link list of Andelku's posts about The Hedgehog.

You'll understand when you see.

Reacharound.

I'm not sure I can, in good faith, continue to call this a moderate blog. In spite of the fact that I am in agreement with the House Republicans on /their/ version of the economic bailout package in general-- one which requires wallstreet use private capital to inject liquidity into the market. I'm wary about the tax law easing part of it, but I'd have to look more closely at the details.

But the thing of it is, my opinions are becoming a lot more socialist than I had expected would ever happen. I believe that a society which required debt to function is fundamentally flawed, and this kind of thing is pretty much bound to happen. And I'm rather not convinced that such a collapse is a bad thing. So I'm rather biased here.

Frankly, I'd rather slice my own damn bread.

Rulebreaking: The Obvious.

What the shits is this?

Obviously, Barak Obama wants to lose now. Obviously, our government is now more corrupt than it was when Nixon was in office. Obviously, those sitting in government are behaving like the old Roman Senators, or the members of the First Republic, and they don't give a shit about what happens to this country a hundred years from now, as long as they save their asses now.

I hate the word 'obviously', and 'clearly' is just as bad. They're words that one uses to tell you that the emperor has clothes, really. But this... not only does the emperor have no clothes, he is shitting in the street.

But there are times, as our constitution says, when it is not only the right but the responsibility of the people to kick the ass of the administration. If that time isn't now, I fear it will be soon. And I'll tell you, I am being overcome by an urge I would never have had before-- the urge to buy a firearm and keep it in my house.

Because I can.

While I can.

Semi-Absolutism

Hillary Clinton did not just refer to nuclear deterrence as, "What Worked During the Cold War."

I think that it is abundantly clear at this point-- and this is one of the few absolute-like statements I will make-- a State must be secular. Among sovereign states, the idea of state religion must be discarded, and a policy against respecting individual establishments of religion must be adopted-- the reason being that a secular state is the only state which can and must allow all religions to practice, freely and safely. The only religious freedom barred by the secular state is the freedom to oppress, or to murder. For religion must be held to the standards of humanity, and must not be permitted-- as a people-- to deny the rights of all humans to those they deem unworthy of them.

The exceptions being the city-state, such as Vatican City. Jerusalem must not be incorporated into external state; it must be given sovereign status like Vatican City, and ruled by a Jewish/Muslim/Christian triumvirate of a quasi-secular nature.

But I do think that the middle east will never truly experience peace until the rights of muslim arabs and jews both are respected, as all citizens living on the same damn land.

The Lorax Facepalmed

Part of...well, any political whatever ought to, at least, involve a goal, and, you know, doing things that get you closer to that goal.

Which is why the whole bit about allowances for pollutions for companies and things pisses me off so egregiously. If the goal is to reduce emissions, how exactly does telling companies the goal-- without telling them how to go about it, but that they can trade pollution allowances with cleaner companies-- accomplish this? We're talking real reality, not a Sim City type, where the friendly AI could pop up a message, "sorry, you can't make any more Thneeds, you have reached your Emissions Limit for this quarter :)"

One must always keep in mind the oft forgotten fact that government does not exist to ensure that companies continually turn a profit. And while forced shut-downs of non-essential businesses who fail to live up to responsibility standards may be extreme, it is a more serious solution to the stated problem than what is on the table thusfar.

This all, of course, assumes that the stated goal is desirable. But if it is, let's bloody well take it seriously, by cracky.