I think it is important for a community to support its arts. A primary means for supporting the art is communtiy festivals like the upcoming Days of 47 festivities, and I would even give the sponsoring community bands and buying art from local artists is a very good idea since it helps employ local artists.
Anyway, I was looking at the Salt Lake Twilight Concert Series. This seems like it is going a bit overboard. The stated goal of thise series is to provide a venue for "nationally and internationally acclaimed performing artists" (not local artists).
The concerts are not part of a community celebration. It is just a weekly series of late night entertainment. The mission of the program is to provide "sustenance for the body and soul." At this state sponsored event you can get body art and psychic readings. The web site'ss goal behind this event sounds more like a religious service than a community event.
The line up has some really big names like Left Over Salmon. It is not like these are groups that have difficult selling tickets. Quite frankly, the state paying for top talent makes it harder for all the little local bands to get paying gigs at local night clubs.
The events aren't overcoming a deficit of live music. Salt Lake is on a crossroads which all but guarantees that music venues will fill up with top talent.
I do everything I can to support local art. I just am not sure if providing free tickets to top international talent is the best use of taxpayer's dollars. I guess my affinity is with the artists on the outside of the political structure.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
Anti Universal Coverage Club
I had to take a break from reading The Chomsky and bopped on over to Cato at Liberty for a little bit of sanity. The Cato blog is still a bit too partisan for my taste. To my delight, a Michael F. Cannon at Cato has started an Anti Universal Coverage Club.
I want to be a part of the club.
IMHO, The health care problem is largely the creation of the insurance industry. It is the insurance companies that jack up the price of health care and limit access to service. The AMA and other elitist bureaucracies also add to the problem by creating a scarcity of doctors.
Accepting that the health care crisis is caused by the insurance companies, then universal care is the complete backward solution. Universal care simply transfers more power into the hands of the people who caused the problem.
Putting it another way: The insurance companies are corrupt. Each year they gain power and each year are less happy with our health care system. Giving these wanks absolute power in the form of Universal Coverage leads to absolute corruption.
The current health care crisis fails the most basic back of the envelop test. Health care is primarily a human to human service. The service is greatly enhanced by information. However, the primary cost of a human on human service is labor. If there is a large number of people being locked out of receiving a human to human service is an indication that something artificial is interfering with basic economics. The three artificial things in our present socio-economic structures are the AMA (which is set on preventing people from getting educated as doctors), the legal community which is very good at take a piece of everyone they sue, and the insurance industry.
One could also throw into this mix all of the centralized health care monopolies and bureaucracies which seem more adept at looking after themselves than the patients who are under their care.
The cost of information has dropped dramatically. The efficiencies of production have freed a large number of hands for health care. The one and only one reason that we would be seeing so many people blocked from access to health care is that there is something false in our economy. The artificial elements are the insurance bureaucracies, artificial shortages of doctors, a corrupt legal system and excessive taxes. Get rid of those things, and back of the envelope calculations show we would be in health care manna.
Anyway, I need to get back to reading Chomsky. I will be in a super bad mood until I can start reading something more positive and down to earth like the Death Hallows. Yes, bright and happy literature like the Death Hallows will be a welcome relief from The Chomsky.
I want to be a part of the club.
IMHO, The health care problem is largely the creation of the insurance industry. It is the insurance companies that jack up the price of health care and limit access to service. The AMA and other elitist bureaucracies also add to the problem by creating a scarcity of doctors.
Accepting that the health care crisis is caused by the insurance companies, then universal care is the complete backward solution. Universal care simply transfers more power into the hands of the people who caused the problem.
Putting it another way: The insurance companies are corrupt. Each year they gain power and each year are less happy with our health care system. Giving these wanks absolute power in the form of Universal Coverage leads to absolute corruption.
The current health care crisis fails the most basic back of the envelop test. Health care is primarily a human to human service. The service is greatly enhanced by information. However, the primary cost of a human on human service is labor. If there is a large number of people being locked out of receiving a human to human service is an indication that something artificial is interfering with basic economics. The three artificial things in our present socio-economic structures are the AMA (which is set on preventing people from getting educated as doctors), the legal community which is very good at take a piece of everyone they sue, and the insurance industry.
One could also throw into this mix all of the centralized health care monopolies and bureaucracies which seem more adept at looking after themselves than the patients who are under their care.
The cost of information has dropped dramatically. The efficiencies of production have freed a large number of hands for health care. The one and only one reason that we would be seeing so many people blocked from access to health care is that there is something false in our economy. The artificial elements are the insurance bureaucracies, artificial shortages of doctors, a corrupt legal system and excessive taxes. Get rid of those things, and back of the envelope calculations show we would be in health care manna.
Anyway, I need to get back to reading Chomsky. I will be in a super bad mood until I can start reading something more positive and down to earth like the Death Hallows. Yes, bright and happy literature like the Death Hallows will be a welcome relief from The Chomsky.
The Projectionist
I should warn everyone. I am reading yet another work by Noam Chomsky; so I am depressed at the moment.
When The Noam projects his philosophy onto others, the world looks like a horrible place.
The single biggest problem in the world today is that Noam Chomsky is the single most influential thinker of our era.
I have to admit, the technique of The Chomsky works. When a skillful dialectician projects his ideology onto his opponents, the world ends up hating the victim of the projection and not the projectionist.
Apparently Chomsky's thesis is that evil Republicans want to oppress the people by making government smaller. Chomsky calls a smaller government a "diminished public arena." This, of course, is nothing but an old twists of even older paradoxes.
The Chomsky says of the United States: "Destroying hope is a critically important project. And when it is achieved, formal Democracy is allowed."
The Democracy and Free Market that Chomsky despises were built on hope. It is socialism that feeds on despair.
Of course, for the during of my reading this work, I will be in a state of despair. Our publicly funded universities are filled with people who fall on their knees in worship of every word that emanates from this wank.
The Chomsky is probably the single most influential intellectual since Marx (with the possible exception of Russell). When you look at how messed up Washington is today, I hope people realize that a great deal of the mayhem is a direct result of people pulled into action and reaction to the ramblings of Chomsky as he spouts paradoxes and projects his thoughts onto others.
When The Noam projects his philosophy onto others, the world looks like a horrible place.
The single biggest problem in the world today is that Noam Chomsky is the single most influential thinker of our era.
I have to admit, the technique of The Chomsky works. When a skillful dialectician projects his ideology onto his opponents, the world ends up hating the victim of the projection and not the projectionist.
Apparently Chomsky's thesis is that evil Republicans want to oppress the people by making government smaller. Chomsky calls a smaller government a "diminished public arena." This, of course, is nothing but an old twists of even older paradoxes.
The Chomsky says of the United States: "Destroying hope is a critically important project. And when it is achieved, formal Democracy is allowed."
The Democracy and Free Market that Chomsky despises were built on hope. It is socialism that feeds on despair.
Of course, for the during of my reading this work, I will be in a state of despair. Our publicly funded universities are filled with people who fall on their knees in worship of every word that emanates from this wank.
The Chomsky is probably the single most influential intellectual since Marx (with the possible exception of Russell). When you look at how messed up Washington is today, I hope people realize that a great deal of the mayhem is a direct result of people pulled into action and reaction to the ramblings of Chomsky as he spouts paradoxes and projects his thoughts onto others.
Can U Turn a Bad Religion Good?
This is actually a post that I thought about writing when I first started this blog in 2003. President George Bush had just invaded Iraq with the belief that he could shock and awe the radical out of Islam, and that the people of Iraq would join the world on the path to becoming a modern liberal democracy with a free market, respect for human rights and all the things that traditional America used to hold dear.
I thought the venture was dubious as I don't believe one can kill hatred out of a people. Nor do I think it possible to force people into freedom.
Winning the war of ideas is something far too subtle for an army. The war of ideas is won through reason and not force. Unfortunately, with the left still under the sway of material dialactics, there is no way our country can engage in the discourse necessary to win the war of ideas raging in the middle east.
Unfortunately, the decision of how to procede in the Middle East was a decision left up to our elected officials. Bush won the diplomatic effort with Iraq and Hussein was reducing his stockpiles of WMDs. We invaded anyway with the hope that we could liberate and liberalize an oppressed people.
Bush's decision made me deeply depressed. Looking at the map we can see that if Iraq were to transform into a liberal democracy it would mean a new age of prosperity for the world. Yet the idea of forcing freedom on people is a tenuous affair.
Unable to see a great deal of hope for Iraq, I decided to look closer to home for hope.
One reason that I had some hope for the Iraq venture is that this little Valley of Salt Lake underwent a transition from an extremely oppressive theocracy to becoming a state that appreciates the American way.
My view of Utah history is that Brigham Young had created one of the most oppressive states ever conceived. By claiming to be the mouthpiece of God, he had set himself up as the head of state, church and local military. By spouting socialism, he was able to claim people's property and he even set himself up a sugar daddy with scores of wives.
The American army invaded Utah. Using means that by all rights should be labeled oppressive, the US government put an end to polygamy and most of the excesses of the LDS theoracy that had taken hold in Utah.
With Brigham Young's grab for absolute power stifled, the Mormons were turned from the path of totalitarianism to simply being a group with a highly active church and a with a tendency to vote as a block.
Although Mormons occasionally pull nasty tricks on their fellow men, Mormons have also become staunch defenders of liberty. So, in its short history, Mormonism essentially turned into its opposite.
Although I strongly disagreed with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, I thought that if we could just get Iraq to its second election with under a hundred thousand dead, there was a chance that democracy might take root.
It is the first official peaceful transfer of power than matters most. When Bush committed our nation to war, he committed our troops to providing security at least until the second election.
People, political parties and alliances are always changing. The value of an elected government is that it creates a peaceful mechanism for realizing that change. Even when a group of people do not hold to Democratic ideals, they often become appreciative of the fact that democracy solves the problem of succession. When people become appreciative of elections, they often turn from totalitarianism.
Of course, my thesis that you can draw any correlation between the Mormon experience and Iraq is quite weak. A very large number of the immigrants who became Mormon did so because they wanted to part of the United States. The United States had purchased the land that the Mormons wanted for their country from Mexico; So the invasion of Utah was a little bit more legitimate than the invasion of Iraq.
The idea that Bush could turn a bad religion good through force becomes even more dubious when one realizes that the vast majority of people on this planet reject and even outwardly hate the ideals of liberal democracy. Go to a Democratic fundraiser and talk about the ideals of freedom and small government held by Thomas Jefferson. You are guaranteed to be tossed out on your arse.
There is a staggeringly large number of Americans (especially in the academic world) who still are deeply committed to realizing socialism. These people would reject the argument that Mormonism was a bad ideology that has been tempered with time but was a good socialist ideology turned bad.
I did not finish this post, because the idea that social engineers can force a bad religion good is too tenuous to deserve serious discussion.
Dammit, the Republicans were supposed to be the party that rejected social engineering. George Bush the first fell short of toppling Iraq after Desert Storm simply for that very reason.
There may be one case where a group of people was forced to change and they changed for the better. Yet this is not the way to win the war of ideas. In the long run, force seems to bring the worst ideas to the surface.
Look at how all of the bad ideas like socialized medicine, massive government regulation, wage and price controls, protectionism, ..., are all back on the table in the wake of Bush's attempt to change a group of people by force.
Prior to Bush's decision to invade, the classical liberals of the world had the world engaged in a dialog. It was a dialog they were winning.
Bush's listening to the neocons and invading Iraq, when diplomatic efforts were succeeding, has thrown it all into reverse.
I didn't post this idea in 2003, because I know in my heart that is actually to turn good things bad than to make bad things good.
I thought the venture was dubious as I don't believe one can kill hatred out of a people. Nor do I think it possible to force people into freedom.
Winning the war of ideas is something far too subtle for an army. The war of ideas is won through reason and not force. Unfortunately, with the left still under the sway of material dialactics, there is no way our country can engage in the discourse necessary to win the war of ideas raging in the middle east.
Unfortunately, the decision of how to procede in the Middle East was a decision left up to our elected officials. Bush won the diplomatic effort with Iraq and Hussein was reducing his stockpiles of WMDs. We invaded anyway with the hope that we could liberate and liberalize an oppressed people.
Bush's decision made me deeply depressed. Looking at the map we can see that if Iraq were to transform into a liberal democracy it would mean a new age of prosperity for the world. Yet the idea of forcing freedom on people is a tenuous affair.
Unable to see a great deal of hope for Iraq, I decided to look closer to home for hope.
One reason that I had some hope for the Iraq venture is that this little Valley of Salt Lake underwent a transition from an extremely oppressive theocracy to becoming a state that appreciates the American way.
My view of Utah history is that Brigham Young had created one of the most oppressive states ever conceived. By claiming to be the mouthpiece of God, he had set himself up as the head of state, church and local military. By spouting socialism, he was able to claim people's property and he even set himself up a sugar daddy with scores of wives.
The American army invaded Utah. Using means that by all rights should be labeled oppressive, the US government put an end to polygamy and most of the excesses of the LDS theoracy that had taken hold in Utah.
With Brigham Young's grab for absolute power stifled, the Mormons were turned from the path of totalitarianism to simply being a group with a highly active church and a with a tendency to vote as a block.
Although Mormons occasionally pull nasty tricks on their fellow men, Mormons have also become staunch defenders of liberty. So, in its short history, Mormonism essentially turned into its opposite.
Although I strongly disagreed with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, I thought that if we could just get Iraq to its second election with under a hundred thousand dead, there was a chance that democracy might take root.
It is the first official peaceful transfer of power than matters most. When Bush committed our nation to war, he committed our troops to providing security at least until the second election.
People, political parties and alliances are always changing. The value of an elected government is that it creates a peaceful mechanism for realizing that change. Even when a group of people do not hold to Democratic ideals, they often become appreciative of the fact that democracy solves the problem of succession. When people become appreciative of elections, they often turn from totalitarianism.
Of course, my thesis that you can draw any correlation between the Mormon experience and Iraq is quite weak. A very large number of the immigrants who became Mormon did so because they wanted to part of the United States. The United States had purchased the land that the Mormons wanted for their country from Mexico; So the invasion of Utah was a little bit more legitimate than the invasion of Iraq.
The idea that Bush could turn a bad religion good through force becomes even more dubious when one realizes that the vast majority of people on this planet reject and even outwardly hate the ideals of liberal democracy. Go to a Democratic fundraiser and talk about the ideals of freedom and small government held by Thomas Jefferson. You are guaranteed to be tossed out on your arse.
There is a staggeringly large number of Americans (especially in the academic world) who still are deeply committed to realizing socialism. These people would reject the argument that Mormonism was a bad ideology that has been tempered with time but was a good socialist ideology turned bad.
I did not finish this post, because the idea that social engineers can force a bad religion good is too tenuous to deserve serious discussion.
Dammit, the Republicans were supposed to be the party that rejected social engineering. George Bush the first fell short of toppling Iraq after Desert Storm simply for that very reason.
There may be one case where a group of people was forced to change and they changed for the better. Yet this is not the way to win the war of ideas. In the long run, force seems to bring the worst ideas to the surface.
Look at how all of the bad ideas like socialized medicine, massive government regulation, wage and price controls, protectionism, ..., are all back on the table in the wake of Bush's attempt to change a group of people by force.
Prior to Bush's decision to invade, the classical liberals of the world had the world engaged in a dialog. It was a dialog they were winning.
Bush's listening to the neocons and invading Iraq, when diplomatic efforts were succeeding, has thrown it all into reverse.
I didn't post this idea in 2003, because I know in my heart that is actually to turn good things bad than to make bad things good.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Thought for the Day
To some, the cup is half empty. To other it is half full. To the transcendentalist the cup is locked in an epic struggle to bring out its inner cupness.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The Key is the Election
I thought I would re-iterate a previous post.
It is widely acknowledged that the new Iraqi government is a failure.
Most government initiatives fail. For that matter most of the governments in history really should be chalked up as failures.
The whole point of the Republican form of government is that it is possible to get rid of failed governments.
Our focus in Iraq from this point forward should be to get the country to the next election. Our efforts should concentrate on assuring that the second election is clean.
The next election should include a referendum on whether or not the US retains troops in the country. The decisions we make should include formalized polling from the Iraqi people.
It is the second election that matters most. IMHO, When Bush committed our nation to the war in Iraq, he committed the country to doing everything we can to get to the second election.
In other words, the time table for US withdrawal from Iraq should be based on Iraq election cycles. Our decision to stay or leave the area should include input from the Iraqi people.
I think Bush was correct to stave off early demands for a time table. The earlier time tables would have us pulling out before the second election. Bush's troop surge was a success because it got us over the midterm slump that occurs when people realize that their elected officials are really just a bunch of self serving, ineffective cads.
The second election is in January 2009. It falls between the 2008 US election and inauguration. Having a referendum and new government in Iraq means that the next US president will be dealing with a new government. The new president would also have direct input from the election.
If President Bush was wise, he would start directing our attention to the next Iraqi election. If the presidential candidates were wise, they would state openly that their Iraqi policies would be driven from the input of the January 2009 elections.
It is widely acknowledged that the new Iraqi government is a failure.
Most government initiatives fail. For that matter most of the governments in history really should be chalked up as failures.
The whole point of the Republican form of government is that it is possible to get rid of failed governments.
Our focus in Iraq from this point forward should be to get the country to the next election. Our efforts should concentrate on assuring that the second election is clean.
The next election should include a referendum on whether or not the US retains troops in the country. The decisions we make should include formalized polling from the Iraqi people.
It is the second election that matters most. IMHO, When Bush committed our nation to the war in Iraq, he committed the country to doing everything we can to get to the second election.
In other words, the time table for US withdrawal from Iraq should be based on Iraq election cycles. Our decision to stay or leave the area should include input from the Iraqi people.
I think Bush was correct to stave off early demands for a time table. The earlier time tables would have us pulling out before the second election. Bush's troop surge was a success because it got us over the midterm slump that occurs when people realize that their elected officials are really just a bunch of self serving, ineffective cads.
The second election is in January 2009. It falls between the 2008 US election and inauguration. Having a referendum and new government in Iraq means that the next US president will be dealing with a new government. The new president would also have direct input from the election.
If President Bush was wise, he would start directing our attention to the next Iraqi election. If the presidential candidates were wise, they would state openly that their Iraqi policies would be driven from the input of the January 2009 elections.
Monday, July 09, 2007
778 - Define Rich Theory
The purpose of yesterday's announcement was to motivate myself to start working on a new project.
I made the announcement on 7/7/7, I figured I better pound out a second essay on 7/7/8.
Me being me, I procrastinated. So, just a little bit after 11:00PM on 2007-07-08, I forced myself to sit down and start working on the opening page for the work.
This opening page is quite difficult to write as the work itself is somewhat bizarre.
Rich Theory started as observations I had about the foundations of mathematics. In researching the history of ideas, I realized that my observations on mathematics were relevant to a large number of fields. For example, the conflicts between classical and new math is surprising similar to the conflict between Marxism and classical economics. It is also similar to the conflict between classical and modern liberalism.
The conflict between classical and new math is simply one manifestation of the conflict between classical and modern thinking.
So, while Rich Theory started as a math theory, I've chosen to expand the scope of the work.
What I intend to create is a collection of essays on the history of philosophy, logic and mathematics intermingled with a small number of more advanced articles on mathematics and programming.
Anyway, I completed the opening page of Rich Theory. In this chapter I give an introduction to the term Rich Theory. Unfortunately, I will not be able to fully explain why I chose this strange name until the end of the work.
I made the announcement on 7/7/7, I figured I better pound out a second essay on 7/7/8.
Me being me, I procrastinated. So, just a little bit after 11:00PM on 2007-07-08, I forced myself to sit down and start working on the opening page for the work.
This opening page is quite difficult to write as the work itself is somewhat bizarre.
Rich Theory started as observations I had about the foundations of mathematics. In researching the history of ideas, I realized that my observations on mathematics were relevant to a large number of fields. For example, the conflicts between classical and new math is surprising similar to the conflict between Marxism and classical economics. It is also similar to the conflict between classical and modern liberalism.
The conflict between classical and new math is simply one manifestation of the conflict between classical and modern thinking.
So, while Rich Theory started as a math theory, I've chosen to expand the scope of the work.
What I intend to create is a collection of essays on the history of philosophy, logic and mathematics intermingled with a small number of more advanced articles on mathematics and programming.
Anyway, I completed the opening page of Rich Theory. In this chapter I give an introduction to the term Rich Theory. Unfortunately, I will not be able to fully explain why I chose this strange name until the end of the work.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
777 - A New Start
I spent the day working on the Community Color Calendars. I am rewriting the calendars from scratch as the original prototype of the calendars depended on the "Register Global" feature of PHP. The project is taking a long time simply because I've found that I've lost interest in the project.
I looked at my clock, and realized that it would soon be 7PM on 7/7/7.
I love working on web sites, but I want to do something different.
Several years ago, I purchased the domain name y-intercept.com to work as a community based research web site. I never found a community interested in doing research. So, I decided I am going to do something different with the site. I will use the site to write a project that will be called "Rich Theory."
Rich Theory is a rather involved and ambitious project. Unfortunately, I am being called away for the evening. So, will use this moment simply to announce the beginning of the project. The announcement is on a page called start start.
I will tell you what will be in the project in the upcoming days.
I looked at my clock, and realized that it would soon be 7PM on 7/7/7.
I love working on web sites, but I want to do something different.
Several years ago, I purchased the domain name y-intercept.com to work as a community based research web site. I never found a community interested in doing research. So, I decided I am going to do something different with the site. I will use the site to write a project that will be called "Rich Theory."
Rich Theory is a rather involved and ambitious project. Unfortunately, I am being called away for the evening. So, will use this moment simply to announce the beginning of the project. The announcement is on a page called start start.
I will tell you what will be in the project in the upcoming days.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Slow Foods
One of the really cool ideas that is taking off on in the information is the idea of Community Supported Agriculture. CSA is a way to get fresh locally produced foods from the farm onto kitchen tables. Rather than shopping at a store for vegetables, you buy a share of a farmer's crop. You pick up your portion of the crop throughout the year.
CSAs are a bit information intensive. The farms that engage in this practice need to send out newsletters and harvesting schedules so that their customers can have some idea of what to expect. Farms are also wise to share recipes.
The site Slow Food Utah has information on CSAs, Farmers Markets and other techniques to reacquaint people with food. I've had food from East Farms.
The only real problem with slow foods is that you end up needing to schedule yourself around the food. IMHO, the effort needed to sync one's life to the harvesting cycle of the land has all sorts of benefits. It saves a great deal of engery. You get better food and probably live a healthier life.
Since this is a political blog. I guess I need to say something political. When I was a kid big agriculture and processed foods were seen as progressive. Small farms were seen as quaint, old fashioned relics. Preserving such farms was a Conservative issue. Today, it things seem to have flipped flopped and the progressive community has embraced the idea.
I think that supporting small farms and encouraging the consumption of local produce is a good idea regardless of one's personal's political perspective. Here are some Salt Lake Agriculture Links.
CSAs are a bit information intensive. The farms that engage in this practice need to send out newsletters and harvesting schedules so that their customers can have some idea of what to expect. Farms are also wise to share recipes.
The site Slow Food Utah has information on CSAs, Farmers Markets and other techniques to reacquaint people with food. I've had food from East Farms.
The only real problem with slow foods is that you end up needing to schedule yourself around the food. IMHO, the effort needed to sync one's life to the harvesting cycle of the land has all sorts of benefits. It saves a great deal of engery. You get better food and probably live a healthier life.
Since this is a political blog. I guess I need to say something political. When I was a kid big agriculture and processed foods were seen as progressive. Small farms were seen as quaint, old fashioned relics. Preserving such farms was a Conservative issue. Today, it things seem to have flipped flopped and the progressive community has embraced the idea.
I think that supporting small farms and encouraging the consumption of local produce is a good idea regardless of one's personal's political perspective. Here are some Salt Lake Agriculture Links.
Monday, July 02, 2007
aiPhone
So, did you join the rush and buy an iPhone this week?
Personally, I am waiting for the aiPhone.
In addition to voice, music and video, the aiPhone includes an advanced form of artificial intelligence that has an IQ slightly higher than then average college graduate.
Of course, with the aiPhone, it is not so much a question of you buying the aiPhone, as the aiPhone buying you.
Personally, I am waiting for the aiPhone.
In addition to voice, music and video, the aiPhone includes an advanced form of artificial intelligence that has an IQ slightly higher than then average college graduate.
Of course, with the aiPhone, it is not so much a question of you buying the aiPhone, as the aiPhone buying you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)