Memorial Day
-
“Happy Memorial Day “ seems to be all you hear in the week prior to
Memorial Day. When the very definition of memorial is to remember, it seems
odd to say ...
9 years ago
- L S. "Spencer" Olsen
- I don't really care if you agree or not. Just saying what I think.
Monday, October 3, 2011
1. New hot chick is a complete mismatch. It was bad enough having Meghan Fox convince us that she is not only a horrible actor but has absolutely no chemistry with her male lead - now it gets worse. Bay decided against casting an actress model Rosie Huntington-Whitely who, before this film, acted in precisely ZERO films, TV shows, etc. According to IMDB - she's pretty tall for a girl, coming in at 5'-9" - which is exactly how tall Mr. LeBeouf is. So naturally, you would select a "tall as your leading man" supermodel with 0 acting experience and put her in heels throughout the whole movie... Back in the day when Ingrid Bergman played opposite famous short-man Humphrey Bogart, they stuck 3 inch blocks under Bogey's shoes so he wouldn't look like a midget. We are supposed to believe that Sam, now through both high-school and college is a man now - so dwarf him with a taller, leggy, plastic blonde. So now, 3 movie later, Sam still looks like a kid and there is still no emotional connection to his female love interest. Proving once again that Michael Bay should stick to making music videos and commercials and leave making movies to the grown-ups.
2. Screenwriters live in a dank basement and are shackled to typewriters. If you strip away all the CG, lighting, actors, models, etc. - you find a pretty good story line and great characters. The screen writers for this series of movies did a good job coming up with a captivating plot. In the 3rd movie, they tie it all together and make sense of the the series as a trilogy. But it's been glossed over in favor of 'splosions, potty humor, and hot chicks. The first movie finds the bad guys trying to find their leader and wake him from his ice-coma. To do this they need the Hell-Raiser puzzle cube. Once he is awakened - Megatron tries to get the cube. Since that failed, he enters into a deal with the Fallen (in the second movie) to find the Matrix of leadership which has the same qualities as the cube. The third movie ties them in - Megatron's tried to get these items to wake Spock-bot who lies dormant on the dark side of the moon in order to bring about the rebirth of his home planet. He tricks the good guys into waking him up only to have him betray them and join forces with agent Smith Megatron. Great story. Then you have characters like the ousted X-Files agent and his crew of hard and information - the young soldier who finds himself mixed-up in the whole thing, rising through the ranks to run the show, etc. All mixed in with the fact that the government knew and missions to the moon, Mars were all to document big robot aliens and was then covered up by a secret society loyaly to their new robot overlords. But you don't see any of this because the whole movie looks like it was shot by the producers of Robot Chicken. Fart jokes, robot farting, humping, masturbation jokes, 'splosions, BurAAAAH! WOOOSH! SpadOOOM!!! There's so much distraction from the story. Since it's California, the only explanation is that the writers are still alive is that they are waiting for their background checks to come back so they can buy guns to kill themselves with.
3. Inept people. So the bad guys seal off Chicago and start roaming the streets killing everyone. So what do the people of Chicago do - well 2 days later, they are freely wandering the streets and being randomly killed. Why are they still out and not hiding if they know what's going on? Because Bay will not kill main characters and people look good dying.
4. Inept Military. So the bad guys seal off Chicago and start roaming the streets killing everyone. They also set up some sweet portal stuff to enact their master plan. Back in their command HQ - the people in charge lament that they cannot get eyes on the ground explaining that the bad guys have complete air superiority and shoot down every plane, jet, drone that they send in. Meanwhile, Shia and his army buddies just walk in unnoticed. On top of that, when the military decides to go in to provide support - they insert their team... ready?
By Flying them into the same airspace they claim they can't get in to!!! That's right - fly 'em in....then have them parachute in after pulling a rocky and bullwinkle with wing-suits. So, let me get this straight... put all your troops in air transport and send them into a zone where hostile forces have complete air superiority and deadly aim. Have them jump out of said plane and fly around the "controlled" airspace for a while, pull their ripcords and float down another hundred feet or so completely helpless. Good plan.
5. Dry SEALS. At some point, our heroes are wandering around the city making 'splosions. They're like BURRRRAH! and WOOOOSH! and they do a BLUAMM! and BUBUBUBUBU! SKUDOOOOOODGE!!! They are on the river on Wacker Drive and need when suddenly - Navy SEALS emerge from the water in their SCUBA gear. Hi, SEALS! They exchange greetings, Josh Duhamel outlines the battle plans and they stand in front of a raised bridge scratching their heads...
Durrrr... How do we get across? May I offer a suggestion?
Half of you are SEALS with scuba gear and the other half are physically fit - SWIM. Now granted they may not want to get wet and that is perfectly understandable. So go in the booth and lower the bridge. You might now say, "Spence, you crazy the controls to the bridge don't work... obviously." You'd be right except Wash hacks into Chicago and lowers them meaning they worked all along.
6. Supermodel changes the outcome of the entire movie. So Optimus Prime is having is shiny metal .... you-know-what handed to him by Spock-bot. In a bold move, our incredible collagened plasti-model strolls up to Megatron who is sulking in an alley (I kid you not). She then proceeds to tell a "thousands of years old super intelligence" that he's just Spock-bot's biotch. Basically, "you aren't going to take that, are you?" "always going to be second fiddle." etc. After which, Megatron wipes his nose with a robo-sniff and says, "No I'm not!" and proceeds to help Optimus beat up Spock-bot saving Optimus' life. Optimus returns the favor by completely murdering Megatron with his bare hands and then coldly executing Spock-bot with a shot to the back of the head.
7. Miscellaneous.
- At some point, the bad guys strap a transformer-watch to Sam so he can spy for them. Despite the first half of the movie not letting a single robot go unnoticed due to "Energon Detectors" - Sam manages to get anywhere and everywhere with this thing on him and no one notices.
- Sam's parents keep making sex jokes. Just stop already.
- John Malkovich. Why? It had nothing to do with the plot. Just wasted time.
- The building we're in is being destroyed by a mechanical worm... for 20 minutes.
- Sam will risk his life to save his girl and we are supposed to be emotionally attached to that despite not believing that he actually likes this chick.
- Spock-bot and Megatron want to bring their home planet of Cybertron to earth so the slave labor force of humans can rebuild it. Fine. Where are you going to put it?
- Tranformers, an advanced ancient robot civilization from another planet used cased ammunition just like man invented in the 19th century.
- How did Bumblebee fit in that?
- Why did I bother watching?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Welcome to Tin Foil Diaries! This is a new segment where Spencer gets really close to the "Conspiracy" edge because - hey - things are starting to look a lot like that these days.
Vol. 1 Episode 1
The Washington Times has reported that as the poverty rate has grown by 2.6 percentage points since 2007 that 1.5 million workers have been dropped from companies' insurance plans.
Tin Foilage...
One could postulate that Obama's "Plan" is working. The tin foily-ness of the plan is that in order to have complete state run health insurance - the current system would have to be destroyed. Destroy private insurance and the masses will beg for social insurance.
What gets this into "Conspiracy" territory is that no one in their right mind would believe that forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, forcing companies to pay for insurance or pay a penalty (which is the better option considering the cost and will lead and has led to people being dropped from their company's insurance), and forcing private citizens under threat of legal action to purchase insurance no matter the cost all the while continuing to fix prices with regulation will not break the back of the insurance system is insane!
Therefore the only rational conclusion can be that the implementation of "Social Medicine" provided by the State - which cause has been championed by Liberals since the 70's - is to destroy the current system leaving the American people no choice. How long have the Liberal elite been crying for healthcare like Europe, Canada, and Cuba? So why would they be interested in forcing you to buy private healthcare? Because they know you can't - especially if they destroy all your purchasing power and create inflation.
Vol. 1. Episode 2
Obama is promising more "Shovel Ready Jobs" in his latest jobs speech all while creating more inflation for the masses.
Tin Foilage...
I guess the media is stupid. They don't remember him promising in December of 2008 and again through the first half of 2009 that his American Investment and Recover Act was not only going to stimulate the economy but provide "Shovel Ready Jobs" by improving this country's infrastructure. So we gave him a blank check for 1 trillion dollars. Guess what? No jobs were to be found. In fact, Obama said, "Shovel-ready was not as - uh - shovel-ready as we thought" and just like that, 200 billion dollars went up in smoke - POOF! You see, the other 980 billion was the goal, the jobs were a ploy to get the money out.
Obama has been talking about another stimulus for the last year or so. In fact, they were talking about a second one back in 2009 just after the first one was passed! The media and independents will eat this slop up because they don't have good memories or are just ignorant. You also have to take into account that he came out in July and said, "We don't need another Stimulus!" in order to sneak Stimulus 2.0 in as a jobs bill. You can count on this new "Jobs" plan to be a ploy to get stimulus out there to Obama's cronies as well as to further the "Agenda" - why else did he ask Congress to pass it now; read it later?
Fix Foil Hats!!! Agenda? What "Agenda"? Well, we can really go one of 2 ways here. First is the Keynesian economic model route. The other is the conspiracy route.
Keynesian macroeconomic theory argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration. So far this has not worked. In fact, it has had the opposite effect. Since first quarter of 2009 unemployment has jumped to around 22% (keep in mind that if you are unemployed, you don't count when your unemployment runs out or you give up looking). If you believe that this is the answer to the Agenda question then you have to believe that Obama is a complete and utter moron-o-tard-mouth-breather. How could he, with a straight face, believe that if it didn't work with a trillion dollars in the last 3 years that it will work this time for sure...
...unless...
He's purposely trying to destroy the quasi-capitalist economic system in order to enact a more Socialist society and Communist government. Let's look at what his new "Jobs" bill is going to do. In order to get funding, Obama is looking to 3 sources:
- Increase taxes on hedge fund managers - This move will serve to increase investment loads (fees) - like an indirect tax on the wealthy and retired.
- Get rid of tax breaks for Big Oil and Gas - Great. Go ahead and raise the price of gas and consumers will not only feel it at the pump, but we will feel it when be buy groceries, clothing, and other necessities. We will feel it when we pay our bills.
- Tax the obscenely rich who make over $200,000/year - If you work for a small company like 52% of working Americans, you can kiss that cost of living raise good-bye. You just might lose your job. Less money in your employer's pocket is less money in your pocket.
Tune in next time - and Please don't report me to Obama!
Friday, August 26, 2011
I'll let this one speak for itself.
Friday, August 12, 2011
To give you an idea of what is going on - guy comes in and asks for a quad-mg42 anti-aircraft gun. Why? Because that's what Discovery Channel paid the actor to say. On top of that, the "client" asks for an impossible deadline that Will is all to happy to try and meet. So Charlie and Joe decide that they need to build some model airplanes to shoot. Charlie asks Joe if batter will explode when you shoot then. Joe says, "Yes, Lithium Polymer batteries will explode when you shoot them." Charlie hits us with a virtual fist pump and "YES!"
Case in point - Lithium polymer batteries do not explode when you shoot them.
Evidence:
Then, at the end, they "shoot" the plane and we get to see it explode in a fury of editing and pyrotechnics. The best part of it was that there was some blue CGI that had not been edited out where they were going to put tracers in hitting the plane. Then you see the plan go toward the ground and cut to explosion. It was 80's hollywood cheese.
Did it end there? Heck no! I've got one better...
So some guy (probably the key grip) comes in and says, "I'm left handed and I need my AR15 changed over to left hand...
So Charlie busts out with this gem... "If you fire a right handed rifle left hand, hot shell casings are going to be hitting you in the face." That's a true statement... UNLESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AR15!!!
As a design feature, the AR-15 and its variants deflect brass at a 1 o'clock position (read: forward) so the military doesn't have to make a bunch of left-handed rifles.
"A spent case deflector was incorporated into the upper receiver immediately behind the ejection port to prevent cases from striking left-handed users." [Venola, Richard (2005). "What a Long Strange Trip It's Been". Book of the AR-15 1 (2): 6–18.]
But wait! There's more - and this is the one that made my eyes bleed...
Some guy comes in with a pair of what he thinks are WWII Walther P38's for appraisal... on the same week they are building MG-42's... (coincidence?)
Anyway, Will really knows about guns so he lets him know that he as a P38 and the later (non-WWII) aluminum framed P1. Then he goes into a small history snippet of the Walther P38 and the geniuses at Discovery roll this clip. Pay close attention to the German holding the "P38" - Notice anything?
Yep, that's a Luger...
Not a P38
A Luger...
Good job, Discovery Channel hippies. Way to nail the learnin' factor! What burns me is that this is the Discovery Channel - you know, for science 'n' stuff! At this point it may as well be Tru TV.
I can't tell you how done I am with this show. I tried, I really did - but there's only so much stupid one can take.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Why hasn't California received a Nobel Prize?!?
0 comments Posted by L S. "Spencer" Olsen at 3:11 PMDear Nobel Committee,
Let me tell you something about California - they are absolute geniuses! Maybe it's something in the water or maybe the smog in the air but I have to confess, these guys have more intelligence than all of our physicists and scientists combined.
We always knew that they were better than us and more sophisticated. They make wine, help traffic drugs and have had the clairvoyance to see the the future if America is open borders and rampant homosexuality. All this pales in caparison to what I have learned about the legislators in California who are brilliant beyond the likes of Einstein.
What am I talking about? Well... this:
This... Is a small plastic sleeve that fits over the grip of your "Assault Rifle" that changes it from an "Assault Rifle" to a regular rifle.
How does it do this and why is it absolutely genius?
The genius comes from the California definition of an Assault Rifle...
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of:
▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action
This incredible device eliminates "a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action" thus making the weapon... well... what does it make the weapon?
This is where the genius comes in. The conclusion that I have come to is that it changes the rifle in the following ways:
- ballistics - You could probably attach a .50 Beowulf upper and fire off a round and this device will lower the velocity of the bullet to that of a .22lr. This device makes the bullet travel a shorter distance at a lower speed and may even morph the caliber of the bullet itself. Magic!
- rate of fire - pull the trigger as fast as you want - this device will stop your finger making it possible for you to only fire 1 round every 10 minutes giving hippies enough time to point you out to the CHiPs.
- capacity - while this attachment will not stop you from re-loading your firearm, it will prevent you from re-loading your firearm quickly. Sure you can reload any normal firearm like this...
But this little device will slow you down guaranteed, ensuring that you can't kill as many people as you planned to when you bought your Assault Rifle (let's be honest, it's the only reason you bought it). Couple that with only 10 round capacity magazines and Gabrielle Giffords can count to 10 without drooling.
Signed,
Spencer
P.S.
If you need the name of a person to give it to, just give it to Barack Obama. I know, he doesn't have anything to do with California but he didn't earn his Nobel Prize either so it should be easy.
Friday, June 10, 2011
This article is on the NY Times this morning. Take a minute and read through it and then come back...
By this author.
This guy needs to understand that those rims and that hat don't make him smart.
For years, Hollywood has revised history in film to ensure that racial sensitivity is maintained and when it is not maintained, the minority leaders and the media cries foul. This is why movies like "300" were blasted for not changing history to include a more diverse setting - why "The Patriot" has a slave owner who is not actually a slave owner. This is where Spike Lee fights Clint Eastwood about "Flags of Our Fathers" despite the movie being about the flag raisers of Mt. Suribachi and not the supply depot or the truck drivers (who I might add were African American and shown in the film accurately). We took "Song of the South" - a movie adaptation of a book written BY A SLAVE - off the market because we didn't like that the master/slave relationship wasn't hateful or "Roots" enough. Why the movie "Sandlot" is set in white-suburbia ca. 1962 yet boasts a Latino and an African American as integrated. We changed 1962 to look like 1993 with rich white neighborhoods accepting minorities as if the Civil Rights movement didn't need to happen! This is how we can have a wealthy, privileged Kenyan/Anglo President from Hawaii who is treated like he understands America's racial struggle.
What this author is doing is "cherry picking" his history. On the one hand, he is upset that "X-Men" left out racial strife, but on the other is perfectly ok with the blackballing of "Huck Finn" - a book which has served as a time capsule of racial ideology that meant show how Black people were treated in the post-Civil War America (lest we forget). Huck Finn is a book about learning racial tolerance in a time where race just simply wasn't tolerated. N-word naysayers need to realize that when we destroy the history of that word, what it means, what it meant, and its place in history it will become worthless and lose its meaning and history will lose in important chapter.
The bottom line is that America (especially "Majority America") is becoming more and more confused with matters of racial history and finds it best to ignore it all together. What would have been the headlines if the Republicans (the party that emancipated the slaves and passed Civil Rights) of the 112 Congress had read the parts of the Constitution having to do with slavery? Would Spike Lee or Al Sharpton have mounted a media attack pointing out racial insensitivity? Erase Huck Finn's n-word and racial intolerance but don't erase slavery in the Constitution. Most of white America is just confused and this author isn't helping. If the African American community wants more historically accurate films that center on issues that are more culturally relevant then they need to petition for more films about the subject. Certainly there is no shortage of black producers and directors - but I guess they're too busy making great movies like "Big Momma's House" and "Soul Plane" to bother.
Monday, May 9, 2011
So I was helping the boys clean their room the other day. And by helping, I mean inspecting. So I looked in their closet and saw all of their Rubbermaid tubs with all the Nerf guns all bungled up inside and then it happened...
A pillar of light descended and I heard angels sing; a vision in my head of what was to come. So I went to the hardware store and bought some one-off 1x.5x96, some peg board, screws and some pegboard accessories. I also had to pick up a miter saw and box and a sweet frame clamp. I measured, measured, cut, clamped, glued, screwed and screwed some more. Then I hung, leveled accessorized and adjusted.
BEHOLD!!!
...word.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Why is it you can always count on liberal think-tanks to miss the point completely? In the article I found yesterday, Thinkprogress busts out this gem of an article:
REPORT: In 12 Years, Income For Richest 400 Americans Quadruples, Tax Rate Nearly Halved
New data released by the IRS reveals that, over a period of 12 years, tax rates for the richest 400 Americans were effectively cut in half. In 1995, the richest 400 Americans paid, on average, 29.93% of their income in federal taxes. In 2007, the last year for which the IRS has released data, the richest 400 Americans paid just 16.63%.
Then they put all these neat charts and graphs showing us how the tax rates went down...
And Income went up...
Then they top it all off with this gem...
If the richest 400 Americans simply paid the same effective rate in 2007 as they did in 1995, the government would have collected over $3 billion in additional revenue. Some millionaires agree that the reduction has been unfair and have formed a group, Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, to demand higher taxes.
The Fail here is amazing. First of all, let me get this out of the way:
Dear Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength,
Please just write a bigger check to Uncle Sam next April.
Thanks,
Spencer
Next, let's talk about these charts.
You've got a couple of charts that basically spits out the following formula:
4n/2=2n
In other words, at half the tax and quadruple the income, the actual income to the Federal Government doubled.
THE INCOME DOUBLED AT HALF THE TAX RATE!!!
...where have we heard this before..?
OH YEAH!!!
James D. Gwartney. "Supply-Side Economics." The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 1993. Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved April 19, 2011 from the World Wide Web: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/SupplySideEconomics.html
Turns out that when taxes are lower, rich people tend to earn more. Think about it... where do rich people get their income? Not usually from an hourly wage pushing paper - no rich people invest. They invest in the market, businesses, etc. THIS IS HOW THEY MAKE THEIR INCOME. When tax rates are low, they get to keep more of their revenue to invest and make more taxable revenue.
It's not rocket science. And yes, I know that tax rates alone do not an economy make, but you can see a direct correlation between low tax rates and high revenue. It happened in the 80's after Reagan lowered income taxes.
But the fact that these "Geniuses" missed the higher tax income is not the best part. The best part is that they state that if only we have taxed this higher income at a higher rate, we would have made $X. They forget that if the tax rate had stayed the same, there is a chance that the taxable income might not have had the same growth rate and probably would have ended up less than the income they got at half the rate. It's simple, simple, simple math:
10% of 1000 is 10
and
20% of 100 is 2
Let's get in the way-back machine and take a look at my post here...
where I said:
Here's where it gets interesting. Our games pay out at an average of around 90% so as I stated above, the gameroom is essentially keeping 10¢ on every dollar that comes in. The operators complain all the time that if only the payout percentage were lower that they would make more money. In other words, the operators want to keep 20¢ of every dollar. So they whine and complain that they are losing money because the percentage is too high.
Because of this factor (competition) we have to maintain high payouts so that the customer will feel like playing our games is worth time and money. The real way to make money is through volume.
Volume works like this:
10% of 1000 = 100
20% of 200 = 20
Did you catch that? Higher percentage means nothing if the volume is not there. What I end up telling our site owners is that if they don't think that they are making any money then you need to increase your volume - promotions, clean your gameroom once in a while, put lights in your parking lot, feed your customers, etc.
Interestingly enough, this doesn't make a dent. The scenario goes like this...
A game paying 95% has yeilded a gross revenue of $20,000. The gameroom operator calls and tells me that this game is "killing" his gameroom. "If it only paid at 90%, I would have made $40,000!"
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!! Wrong. Why, because you cannot control how much money goes into the games - that's up to the customers (volume). If your game paid out less, there is a high possibility that it would not be as popular a game and would therefore have lower volume yielding lower profit.
In all cases, our higher payout games routinely outperform our lower payout games because the customer gets to keep more of his or her own money. It's that simple.
So good job, ThinkProgress. You get the award for idiot of the year. You tried to make a point and ended up falling on your face. Keep 'em coming.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
This is the newest addition to the family, Ziggy.
Ziggy is a Sig Sauer P250C. He has a polymer grip and lower frame.
Ziggy has a one piece fire control unit which allows him to wear different pants and different hats. Ziggy has 3 different size grips available (small, med, large) and accept slide/barrel assemblies chambered in 9mm .40sw .357sig or .45acp.
Ziggy is chambered in 9mm to keep cost low and has a DAO trigger system with a light and smooth 6 lbs trigger pull.
Ziggy also bears Siglite® Night Sights and a picatinny style rail and a 15 rnd double stack magazine.
Range report coming soon...
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
...or campaign speech. I didn't hear much about the actual state of the union. Except that we need more infrastructure despite the fact that we already gave up a trillion dollars for that a couple years ago. Oh, and Bullet trains.
My favorite, though is where he said that we needed to freeze spending and start investing. Wow. First of all, we freeze spending right after I rack up a few trillion in debt and then we continue spending but we will now call it investing.
Then he got hawkish on the war... I swear this wasn't a state of the union but a "please re-elect me... see, I can be a conservative" speech. I'm not buying it.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
From a liberal commenter today, extolling the virtues of Communism...
jamesmcm
If people actually read what Marx supported they probably wouldn't find it so bad, for example, the demands from The Communist Manifesto:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Keep in mind that by centralisation of the media, they meant the printing presses - which whilst now you might think was to do with stopping freedom of speech, it was more to do with being able to disseminate information across the country, to all citizens, as Bukharin talks about in The ABC Of Communism.
The are certainly some points, I disagree with, but the principle that you can only achieve true democracy by ending the dictatorship created by the inequality of capital is very true. As Einstein wrote in Why Socialism?:
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
Me
..but what about my choice?
jamesmcm
How do you mean your choice?
There is no reason that there cannot be the freedom of choice of products in a planned economy, as the most popular designs for products can be produced, and the production of t-shirts, etc. could easily be automated to allow the production of customised shirts.
If you mean the freedom of choice of work then the same principle applies, except now we are no longer troubled by this system of unemployment for many, and overwork for the others. We can use automation to the benefit of all and start automation programmes in as much industry as possible, sharing the labour in the tasks that cannot be automated to relieve the work burden on all. With the products of this, we can provide free education for all people so they can all contribute usefully to society and have a meaningful life, rather than the current system where some are condemned to wasting their only lives sewing footballs, etc. as it is cheaper than automating the work, or abandoned in poverty and unemployment.
If you mean the freedom of choice in democracy, then it is only with the abolition of capital that we will ever truly obtain this, as there will be no corruption from the need for campaign funds and so on. It will also put an end to the problem of globalisation, where the multinational corporations and private banks are now far more powerful than the nations, and so effectively dictate policy by driving down taxes in return for employment and trade, and sponsoring favourable political candidates.
The only people that are any more free under the capitalist system are the capitalists. Those who have claimed exclusive rights to the Earth's land and resources, and hoarded capital from these methods over the centuries, which they now make great profits from whilst doing no work.
Me
So I can have any color I want as long as it's black?
My choice to have personal property. My choice to not participate. My choice to receive inheritance from my father. My choice.
The problem with your planned government and utopia is that unless everyone chooses to participate of their own free will and choice, you will always need enforcement. With enforcement comes positions of power which will spawn a ruling class. Inasmuch as evil still exists, the system will be corrupted by those in power forcing their will on those who are not. So what about my choice. You can't expect a system of government where rights, property, prosperity are abolished to succeed unless everyone is on board.
jamesmcm
That's a terrible strawman argument.
Besides, perhaps the loss of some choice is worth it for the end of the environmental problems, the economic instability and the terrible inequality in the current system. I am sure you wouldn't be defending global capitalism if you were born to poor South American farmhands, East Asian sweatshop workers, or poor families in the slums of East London and Detroit.
Where is our choice not to participate in the current system? I cannot simply ignore the "property rights" of those who have monopolised the Earth's resources or I am arrested and imprisoned. Ultimately we can only have one economic system, and the logical consequence of this is that some people will have to put up with it.
There is nothing wrong with personal possessions, but rather the ownership of resources and the means of production simply to profit off them.
There would be no force to confiscate inheritance, etc. but rather a reform of society so that it is not necessary - if we abolish capital, the monopolisation of property and distribute the goods according to need then what inheritance is there to leave? All people would be provided with homes and the necessities of life, the land and Earth's resources would be communal property to be managed democratically, and the idea of inheritance becomes superfluous.
Communism must be a movement of the majority, but the majority should support it for it is in their interests. You will never get the support of everyone - the capitalists will not freely give up their hoarded wealth and their monopolisation of the land and resources.You mention the problem of the lack of choice not to participate as though it were unique to communism, but there is no choice not to participate in the capitalist society we have now, as all the resources and means of production have been privatised.
Me
so morality by your standard?
Strawman? OK, but how do you solve the problem of creating a ruling class?
I won't argue with you, the whole premise of communism sounds awesome on paper or in a Star Trek movie, but its implementation requires one of two things:
Free will and choice of everyone to accept the society.
-or-
Abolition of the human right to choose to accept the society.
jamesmcm
Well, mainly by not having Leninist vanguardism - where they had a closed party and specific membership, as they felt that the revolutionaries could decide what was best for the people better than the people could. Of course, that just led to a new ruling class.
Instead the focus should be on using modern technology to facilitate the democratisation of the economy and politics, perhaps not through direct democracy entirely, but it should definitely be run somewhat like Participatory Planning rather than the closed, centralised system the Bolsheviks used.
It is a problem where you can't get the support of everyone, but it exists with any political system - even now, as we have no choice but to respect the property rights of the capitalists or face imprisonment. I am aware that two wrongs don't make a right, but at least it would only be a transitory problem, until the class system and inequality is ended and the idea of someone claiming land and resources for themselves is as laughable as someone attempting to privatise the air or the Moon now.
Me
Wouldn't it be fair to say that Participatory Planning may contaminate communism in its purest form?
Define "democratisation of the economy." Do you mean let the people run the economy?
"we have no choice but to respect the property rights of the capitalists or face imprisonment."
Not trying to troll here, but are you stating that no one should have the right to personal property? Or are you stating that those who have obtained personal property through capitalism have no right to it?
jamesmcm
How do you mean? I don't think so, I mean the most important point is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", and that would still stand.
Effectively, to have a centrally planned economy so that goods are distributed centrally, but the designs which are produced are voted on by the people. Of course, the gathering of resources will require more skilled planning, so that may not be able to be so easily democratised, and rather require qualified individuals instead.
I have no problem with personal property, everyone deserves their own home, etc. But instead with the ownership of the land and resources, just to profit from their rent. No-one has any right to buy and sell the land, for it is the exclusive property of no man. I don't see why this idea is particularly controversial, we don't still believe in "divine right" do we?
Me
"How do you mean? I don't think so, I mean the most important point is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", and that would still stand."
Participatory planning may decide that you can't "From each according to his ability... ...but to each according to his need" Therefore the pure ideal of communism is contaminated.
"Effectively, to have a centrally planned economy so that goods are distributed centrally, but the designs which are produced are voted on by the people. Of course, the gathering of resources will require more skilled planning, so that may not be able to be so easily democratised, and rather require qualified individuals instead."
So you would probably have to have "qualified individuals" control the economy... Thus breeding another class and creating inequality... like capitalism
"I have no problem with personal property, everyone deserves their own home, etc. But instead with the ownership of the land and resources, just to profit from their rent. No-one has any right to buy and sell the land, for it is the exclusive property of no man. I don't see why this idea is particularly controversial, we don't still believe in "divine right" do we?"
How do you own a home if someone did not own, buy, and sell the land at some point in time? This point you make confuses me greatly.
"No-one has any right to buy and sell the land, for it is the exclusive property of no man."
however...
"everyone deserves their own home, etc."
Are we living in the clouds in this economic system?
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
