And the books were in our heads.

So, on the subject of this, following hard upon this, I have the following to say:

As it so happens, I lament the loss of old bookstores, but by god, I am not going to spit in the face of progress to do it, or for crying out loud, call progress and advancement Fascist. Protecting an industry is wrong when it's car companies clinging to gasoline instead of more efficient engines for aesthetic reasons, and it's wrong when its publishers who want to make a mint on mass market hardcovers. Will the books go away? No. Will they change? Yes, very probably. Is the Kindle the best medium for e-reading? Not necessarily, but that is why we have anti-trust and competition law, and other things to prevent monopoly.

I could say more, and make this truly tl;dr, but I think that I will have said what I mean, now.

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.

Sometimes, there are certain restrictions which allow freedom. The Bill of Rights is this kind of restriction-- something which restricts the right of others to restrict.

Here is something which talks about this in the context of teh internets:



I believe this in the context of most things, and Religion in particular-- and I apologise if I'm harping on this one-- it is only in a secular state that the practise of religion is truly free. I can, in my very bizarre and personal-faithy way, not interfere with the practise of the Catholic mass or the Pentacostal anything or the Muslim prayers or any of those things, by law. And I love listening to the bells of the church across the street of a Sunday, as much as I'd like to hear the Muzzein call to prayer to mosques of a dusk, whilst reading my tarot cards on a café table. I realise that it is unthinkable to certain religions that anyone else might have answers, but it is imperative that that lack of ability to comprehend that kind of diversity not in fact squelch the same. Because while individuals may believe that They Know Truth, the segments that agree on said Truth are by far smaller than society as a whole, and are trumped thereby.

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.

Dichotomy

I would like to see an Obama/McCain ticket. A lot. If McCain weren't a social idiot, in a lot of ways. But what is necessary is a true bipartisan ticket, and a true bipartisan office.

That's all I have to say.

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.