04 February 2008

Evil will always win. But its OK



  • Feb 4, 2008

Evil will always win. But its OK

Whether history teaches us to be optimistic or pessimistic is only a matter of when and where you choose to look.

There have been wars at least as long as there has been civilization - which of course continues to today.
Empires have risen, Persian, Chinese, Mongolian, Ottoman, Aztec, Inca, British, USSR.
Some lasted for centuries, some covered the majority of the world (that the culture knew of).
Every one of them fell, for one reason or another, eventually.

That could give hope that the US, which is extending influence both culturally, politically, and militarily throughout the world, will inevitably follow - but its seems obvious that it will be replaced by another - no matter the ideals in begins in, it will inevitably grow corrupt. They all do.

In the 3rd century BC the Egyptian library/museum at Alexandria contained the collected knowledge of the Egyptian and Greek civilizations, the largest in the world. While the circumstances of its destruction are debated, it was apparently due to some combination of war and religious fundamentalism.

The civilizations of the Mediterranean created, among other things, plumbing, calculus, and democracy (but only for white male property owners) - and at the hight of the Roman Empire, a popular spectator sport involved watching humans fight to the death, and eventually flooding the coliseum to create mock sea battles - but with real weapons - for the entertainment of government and the wealthy.
In the Dark Ages, as Rome fell, much of the infrastructure was allowed to fall to ruins, and everything from libraries to aqueducts was lost - along with the education and intellectual development that had accompanied it, and much already acquired knowledge and technology was lost.
Then came about the forced conversion of people in Europe, Asia, and Africa to Christianity and Islam, as well as wars between the two (the Crusades) - ultimately spreading throughout the world, and, of-course, lasting to the present.
Europe's renaissance consisted largely of no more than the re-discovery of things which had been previously known, but lost.

For every Ghandi there has been a Hitler and a Mussolini. For every Roosevelt and Carter we've had a Regan, A Bush, and a Bush Jr. Lenin's "people's revolution" turned quickly into Stalin's purges.
Che failed to start a revolution, and after all of Chavez's work, today immigrants still work in pesticide laden fields for far less than minimum wage while middle class Americans with far more comfortable lives advocate criminalizing them for it.


For all the noise the anti-war movement made, American troops pulled out because the North Vietnamese won.
In fact, the non-violent success Ghandi seemingly had happened to be at a time when the British Empire was already in decline with Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Egypt, and Iraq becoming officially fully independent in (or around) 1931, and their military over extended worldwide - a guerrilla war with Ireland, the aftermath of WWII, and calls (and actions) for independence throughout the British Empire in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. For 40 years India had sought independence, but it was not until these - often violent - worldwide events came along that it was finally granted.
Then, almost immediately, (as British representatives had predicted) the country split, and the potentially violent stand-off between newly formed Pakistan and India (both of which have nukes) has lasted to this day. So much for non-violence.





There have been advances in the Western World in civil rights, and yet they are also under constant attack, and undermined in complex and creative new ways. Spirituality offers some personal growth, health and happiness, while the largest portion of the world knows it through organized religion, the most powerful (Christianity and its estranged twin Islam) are anti-science and reason, anti-democratic, anti-individual, anti-sex, and, basically, anti-happiness. The caste system, subjugation, and untold amounts of violence are attributed to "God(s)". In the past the strength of religion has risen and fallen, and we may well be in an up cycle once again, as Islam and Christianity move towards stronger fundamentalists bases - the latter being the larger threat, since it affects the worlds only super power.

Whether monarchy or republic ("democracy") a small group of wealthy elites rules, with privilege inherited instead of earned.


It should come as no surprise, for one very simple principal:

Evil (or those who are more than willing to bring harm upon others for personal gain), will always be willing to do anything it takes to get ahead, to secure power, to gain wealth. Whatever rules there may be, evil will break. What ever morals society may have, evil lacks. How can anything or anyone compete with that?
If someone with good intentions stays within the rules, they are not only at a severe disadvantage from the start, but if they become too successful, they are risking assassination. He who does not accept corporate campaign contributions is never heard of by the general public.
When one takes the tactic of evil to defeat it, one becomes that which is being fought.
If good, caring, progressive, giving people bend the rules a little for the greater good, the slippery slope snowballs oh so quickly, and they end up just a competing faction of evil.

Our "democracy" works perfectly, because we have the illusion of distributed power, so that no one feels, on principal, repressed, and citizens have an abundance of material goods, which they fear losing too much to ever risk revolution. It makes the system stable. Change will never come from within - not unless things get much much worse first.

Why, then after so much seeming historical negativity, did I begin with the claim that there is equal optimism to be found?
The answer is as simple and clear as the argument that evil will always win;
Life is not, and never has been, about the large scale political and social details which are the focus of so much attention.

Life is about the warm sunshine on an early fall afternoon.
Life is about cold ice cream or a juicy orange on a hot summer day.
Life is about sex and affection with one's partner under the covers at night while the rain or snow falls cold outside and makes little patter patter noises outside on the roof and windows.
Life is an engrossing book, or coming home tired but satisfied after a successful day of work.
Its the extra attention you get when you're sick, and the feeling of getting better again, the smell of dinner just before that first bite, unexpected good fortune, and games on the weekend. Life is friends, music, sport, relaxation, children, learning, conversations, all of these little tiny things that fill up each day that seem to pale in comparison to the significance of war and famine - but in truth those things are only important because they interrupt those little things for a while, those little things which are, in fact, everything.
Of course it would be nice were it possible to end all war forever. But there has always been war, (even before there were mammals) and there always will be, because it will be to some people's advantage to take from others, always. But after its over, and new lines are drawn on the maps, the sunshine will still be there. Love, which exists only inside of us, will exist so long as a human is still breathing on this planet.

Saving the world is futile. The world has been as it is (for all practical purposes) forever, and there seems to be no good reason to think it will not continue to be. This is not reason to despair. Just the opposite. For this entire time, everywhere, there exists happiness. Happiness is not merely a reflection of the political system one lives under, or income. Happiness is an emotion that we, as sentient beings, are capable of experiencing. And so we do.

If you can not save the world, if one person can almost never make a real and lasting difference, it gives good people a little more flexibility. One does not fault them self for not stopping the eruption of volcanoes or earthquakes. At most we may try to predict them, perhaps minimize the damage, but we recognize that its going to happen sooner or later, that no individual or group has the capacity or power to "fix" or eliminate the threat. So to with the nature of humanity. Violence and greed are a part of human nature, as they are a part of nature, as we are a part of nature.
Do good if you can. By all means; most certainly; why not?
Do no harm. If you know better, if you feel a morality based on living things capacity to feel (as opposed to the more common version based on what a book or the community dictates), live your own life in such a way that you do not make things worse.
If it works out well for you, since you must work anyway for you own sustenance, work in a field that in some way, makes things a little better for someone. If it is something you enjoy, volunteer. These things are noble, admirable, and only good can come from them.
Just don't expect miracles. Don't sacrifice your life to a cause. We have only this one life (probably) and a life not enjoyed is a life wasted. A life not enjoyed is the most tragic thing imaginable.
Have the courage to change the things you can, but also accept the things you can not change.

Do something good for yourself.
Go out and enjoy the sunshine.

Yes, evil must inevitably win in the long run, every time.
But that's ok.

It's sunny out today.

29 January 2008

Buying a home as an investment


  • Jan 29, 2008

Buying a home as an investment

It’s supposed to be the American Dream.
Instead of throwing away money on rent every month, you can buy your own home, giving you not only a place to live rent free, but a sound financial investment at the same time.

One small problem: the number’s don’t add up.
(Check my numbers: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/mortgage-calculatorhttp://www.dinkytown.net/java/CompoundSavings.html http://www.hsfcuonline.org/cw2.1/calcs/Appreciation/calc_appreciation.asp)

First and foremost, there is the idea that a home is an investment due to appreciation.
The logical flaw in that idea is simple, and doesn’t depend on appreciation or rental rates.

Say you buy a house at a certain price, and the value goes up 500%. What can you do with that "value"?

If you want to live in your house, the best you can do with it is use it as collateral for a loan.
Great... now you can go much deeper in debt all at once than you ever could before.

If you sell the house, now you need to live somewhere else.
If your house just went up 500%, that means every house in your neighborhood just went up 500%.
What ever you made in profit by selling, it will cost you just as much to buy something else of equal quality.
Minus what you lose to agents, banks, and taxes for the transaction.

So in order to ever make use of appreciation, you must either move to a much worse neighborhood, move to a much smaller home, or move to a less desirable location.
So: IF you have kids who will be moving out of the home in 10 years, or you plan to retire somewhere cheaper like Arizona or Florida, only then might a house which you live in be considered an investment.
(Buying a house to rent out to others is another story, since you can sell it anytime)

If you want to stay in your home, you can never cash out, and any appreciation is useless.

But at least you are saving on rent... right?



A hypothetical, more-or-less average, scenario:
You buy a new home for, lets say $400,000 (below the average for the Bay Area of 500-600, but higher than national average of around 200).
Agents, brokers, lenders, typically add in 2-3% in total closing costs, another $10,000 (for simplicity, lets say you have that much in down payment)
On a 30 year loan, add $463,000 in interest at 6% (lower than typical, but slightly higher than where it is right now)

You’ll pay around $2,400 a month, of which more than half is interest paid to the bank.

Add in home owner’s insurance - $800-$1000 per year
Property taxes, (1% in CA) - $4000 per year
(a detached home may or may not have HOA fees, we’ll assume this one doesn’t)

Factoring insurance and taxes, plus water and garbage (usually included in rentals) monthly payments are the equivalent of $2867

After 30 years you have paid a grand total of $1,042,120

Renting a 2 or 3 bdrm in the Bay Area runs anywhere from $1,500 to $2,500 a month - or $540,000 to $900,000 over the course of 30 years.

Now you have paid off the loan, and your mortgage payments go to zero. But you have paid around $322,000 more than you would have in a 2000/month rental. You are still paying insurance and taxes etc; about $470 per month - for a net savings of $1530 monthly over paying rent. At this rate it would take another 17 years (on top of the 30 which have already gone by), just to break even.

And all of this is without even factoring being responsible for maintenance and repairs.

Although you may well not be able to sell at this point (since you have to live somewhere) lets say you are in a situation where you can and want to move to a cheaper home, and cash out your equity.

The average national appreciation rate is 5.5% right now. While CA is much higher than average at 9%, metropolitan areas (such as the Bay Area) are actually lower, at around only 3%.
At 3%, a 400,000 home will be worth $970,900 in 30 years - less than the total you paid by $50,100 (not counting water, garbage, HOA fees, or maintenance)
At 4% it will be worth $1,297,360
At 5% it will be worth $1,728,775 - but remember, as the current "crises" reminds us, there are no guarantees on appreciation rates.

You seemingly came out $266,000 ahead at 4% (assuming you can sell your house and move to something smaller or in a less desirable location)
But what if instead you invested the $8000 down, along with the $800 monthly surplus?
With a guaranteed (insured) long-term CD, you can get up to 5% - which would be $446,000 more than you put into it after 30 years.

If you were luckier, your area’s housing demand went up a lot, and you had a higher appreciation rate, say 6%, you are up $1,266,000 over what you paid
But investing down payment and the difference between rent and mortgage in low risk a mutual fund at 10%, you are up $1,651,700 over what you put into it.
And you can cash out that 1.6mil without moving to a less desirable home.

So, why is it that even though real estate tends to appreciate, you still earn less than a simple CD, or even lose money in the long run? Simple.
The banks and lenders will always charge more in interest on loans than they pay out in interest on savings, no matter what the prevailing rates are at the time. Almost no one can afford to buy a house in cash. The banks, developers, realtors, and everyone else is in the game to make money. If you could make more by investing in the house, they would just buy the house themselves, rent it out, and then keep the profits. But the house is not worth as much as the interest payments that the buyer is willing to make.
The idea of never-ending appreciation is built on the idea that the population keeps growing, and the new people all need somewhere to live, therefore demand rises. Its essentially a pyramid scheme - nothing new of value is being created, home prices tend to go up only because demand tends to go up.

So, if you can so easily end up neutral, or even losing money, by buying a home instead of renting (again, this does not necessarily apply to investment property which you rent out to others, as the rent pays part or all of the mortgage, and you can sell at any time) then why is it so common for people to think that buying a home is a sound investment?

My theory is this myth has been very deliberately started and perpetuated by the real estate and financial industries, the banks, developers, real estate agents, and everyone else who make billions a year off of people buying homes.
They did a pretty good job.
It has become the American Dream.

23 January 2008

First version mysteriously disappeared!



  • Jan 23, 2008

First version mysteriously disappeared!

I have been failing to fulfill my responsibility to provide my non-nonsensical thoughts to my 4 or so readers and the 10 anonymous people who for some reason refuse to let me know who they are.
This is primarily because I haven't had time (from work, spending time with my wife, and video games).
When I have posted, its been the sucky unoriginal kind where I just summarize a news story or post a link I found interesting.
Unfortunately, this is going to be another of those.

On the plus side, I have 5 original ideas lined up, which I am sure I will get to relatively soon.  The subjects are written down so I won't forget, and the content has been enhanced and refined by countless raving conversations with people in the real world.

In the meantime...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virgin Airlines has decided to put 100% of its profits over the next 10 years into developing a non-food crop based renewable bio-fuel to replace petroleum based jet-fuel.
You should avoid flying altogether: although planes are the cause of a relatively small percentage of GHG emissions, this is largely because of the sheer volume of driving we do.  Takes a lot of energy just to keep something that weighs 485 tons in the air, never mind traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.  Not that driving to NY is much better (its actually slightly worse if you make the drive solo).  If you have to travel long distance, its best to take the train.
But we all know we're gonna fly at least occasionally.
I think Virgin has earned our business.  Plus, their is innuendo in the brand, which is another plus.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/01/virgin-airlines-pond-scum-biofuel-global-warming.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A bill has just passed congress, and is expected to pass the senate soon, which focuses on stopping domestic terrorism (that is, acts done by US citizens and permanent residents) not only before they happen, but before they are even planned.  It goes beyond conspiracy to commit a crime to simply holding an ideology which may tend to lead eventually to a crime.  While that is not an arrestable offense, it sets up a government agency tasked with tracking and surveillance on individuals which have undergone or are undergoing " 'violent radicalization' [which] means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."
Look carefully at the syntax of that sentence (a quote from the bill).
It is not based on an actual attempt, plan, or even necessarily even a specific thought of violence, but just having an "extremist belief system" which facilitates violence.
It explicitly includes political or social change. There is no definition of what constitutes "extreme".
Protests have at times included breaking windows, flipping over unoccupied cars, and resisting arrest, all of which can be considered violence.  As such, simply adopting any belief system which is dissatisfied with anything politically or socially could conceivably fall under this new agencies jurisdiction.
By this standard, my blog might be enough to draw attention.

Of 435 members of congress, exactly 6 voted against this bill.  Among them were presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/01/homegrown-terrorism.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the US, the car with the highest mileage (the Prius) gets about 45mpg in real world driving.
This is lower than the average of the entire fleet of passenger cars (including light trucks, vans, and SUVs) in Japan, which has the highest mileage standards in the world at around 47.
The EU is close behind, with standards at about 43, and is set to go above 50 in the next 4 years.
Many US car companies have been advertising cars that get 35 as though this were good mileage.
Some Americans like to point out the rate at which China is catching up to the US in petroleum use and pollution (although this is in total for the country, no one comes close per capita) - yet even China averages 35 for all passenger vehicles.
The US, with all its resources, money, and technology, comes in dead last among all first world countries.  Our current 25.3 is actually LOWER than our average from 20 years ago (25.9)


Technology isn't going to help, because a lack of technology was never the problem.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/questions-and-answers-on-fuel-economy.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/fuel_economy

ADDDITION:  Just read that a company (in India) has started selling a (4 door) car which gets 50mpg which retails for $2500 (American dollars).  Its called the Nano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A blog I stumbled upon of a guy who, while in Japan, buys and browses a great variety of interesting and unusual (at least in our culture) sex toys, including an extended stop in a 7 story tall adult superstore.  Now I like to think of myself as fairly open-minded and adventurous, I enjoy or can at least sympathize with a variety of things I'd just as soon not admit to a general audience, and even I found this to be much more creepy and weird than even slightly sexy.  It is most certainly entertaining though.  Note also there is a part two at the bottom.
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2005/08/curiosities-from-japans-porno-shops.html

22 December 2007

So much to learn about the world; Wikipedia exposes- and cures- our ignorance



  • Dec 22, 2007

So much to learn about the world; Wikipedia exposes- and cures- our ignorance

Amazing the amount of knowledge that there is even to be had, even more so that so much of it has been consolidated.

You learn the most interesting things, which you didn't even know you were looking for at first.

Here are a few of the things I would never have guessed, and have learned since yesterday:



1 In many countries/cultures around the world Santa Claus (or Saint Nick, or whoever) is accompanied by a demonic character, often named Knecht Ruprecht (Servant Rupert), or Krampus (Claw). While Santa gives gifts to good little children, it is the job of Rupert the Claw to punish the bad ones; slightly bad kids are hit with his cane or birch rod, very naughty children are likely to be put into his sack (like Santa's, but empty) and taken away.  A gentler version sometimes has him leaving behind coal or a bundle of sticks in lieu of the beating.
In Italy, in place of Santa is a woman who is an excellent housekeeper and host (and looks a bit like a friendly witch).  She set out to bring the baby Jesus gifts, but got lost, and so instead wanders the world giving gifts to all the children she does find.

2 The island country we know as Taiwan is actually officially called The Republic of China (as distinct from mainland China which is officially The Peoples Republic of China).  In deference to the demands of communist mainland China (PRC) in the UN and other diplomatic settings it is referred to as Chinese Taipei (Taipei is the capital city).
The government / political party which controls Taiwan/Republic of China controlled all of China (mainland and Taiwan) between the time the last dynasty/emperors were overthrown and when the communist party took power, and technically, they still consider all of China to be legitimately party of their territory.
The original inhabitants of Taiwan were most closely related to Polynesians, with Chinese settling there as early as the 1200s.  It was later colonized by the Dutch for 100 years or so, before being defeated by the Chinese when it became a province of China for around 200 years, before being taken over by Japan around the turn of the last century, which controlled it until losing WWII.  AS the communists began to win the civil war only a few years later millions of Chinese loyal to the democratic/capitalistic government fled to Taiwan, ever since running an independent and autonomous - although officially unrecognized - country.
Today 98% of the population is ethnically Chinese (12% of whom have only been there since WWII), only 2% are actually aboriginal Taiwanese.

3 In ancient Greece some of the most politically influential and independent women, and the only ones to be educated, were hetaera, who were among other things, prostitutes.  They filled a somewhat similar role as Japan's geishas or Europe’s courtesans providing entertainment and all forms, including not only sex but everything from music and dance to intelligent conversation.  As with geishas, in some circumstances a hetaera could be purchased outright by a single individual - in one case the price being equivalent to 8 years average salary.
hetaera were the only females who participated in the conversations at Symposiums, a party which was a cross between a place for intellectual discussion and a drinking party.  It seems that in general men were far more likely to be in love with their hetaera than with their wives, whose purpose was primarily only procreation and the upkeep of a household, however, in love or not, they could not marry, as hetaera were never citizens.

17 December 2007

Just in time for Christmas


  • Dec 17, 2007

Just in time for Christmas

The history and impact of American over-consumption, in easy to digest cartoon form


The Story of Stuff




A much more detailed and in depth documentary (these ideas were actually much more deliberate than most would assume)


The Century of The Self"



14 December 2007

3 letters to Utne


  • Dec 14, 2007

3 letters to Utne

I got a free copy of the Utne Reader at the SF Green festival.
First one I had ever read, although I recognized the name as something Aileen had recommended years ago.

It was chock full of interesting articles on a wide variety of important issues, many of which are relevant to me.  I think I'll subscribe.

Three articles inspired letters to the editor, (two of which are available to read on their website).


-------------

Salvage Beauty

I realize that the San Francisco Bay Area in CA is not necessarily representative of the rest of the country, but around here at least, this is not exactly news.

Our version of the "Loading Dock" - Urban Ore - in Berkeley, has been open for 25 years.
It opened originally with materials actually extracted from a landfill, and continues today with drop offs from haulers and donations from the public, as well as a recovery team at the nearby transfer station.
They are very profitable, employ a full time staff, and pay haulers and the public for high quality good condition items.
They have by now spawned a number of smaller copycat stores in the area, with somewhat more specialized focuses.

As a hauler myself, I face plenty of competition in this area from other haulers who, like myself, run their trucks on vegetable oil and donate / recycle / reuse and sell as much of what we pick up as possible.

Far from just making an incredible difference environmentally (both preventing landfill and reducing the need for new materials being made), it also makes great financial sense for everyone involved.
People shopping at a reuse store pay a fraction of what they would, many times for materials which are in excellent condition - sometimes never even used!
As a hauler, I pay much less in dump fees than I would if I simply disposed of everything in one place.
And that means that I in turn can afford to charge my customers a lot less.
Everyone wins.
I hope before long every city can take this concept as much for granted as we are able to here.
Until then, keep up the good work, reporting on stuff like this.

---------

Low Rent High Tech

One form of affordable and green housing which everyone always over looks is the RV park.

RVs as transportation are woefully inefficient, but keep one in one place...

RVs are designed to be able to run off of their own battery power and propane tanks off the grid for weeks or even months at a time.
Things like absorption cycle fridges and a tankless toilet (which have high premiums in home versions) come standard.

An RV uses less than 1/25th the electricity of the average American home, and around and 1/15th the average water.

At the same time, it is by far the least expensive (non-subsidized) form of housing. Both in the San Francisco Bay Area and 10 miles out of Manhattan (two of the most expensive areas in the country, where 1 bdrm apts can go for over $1500 a month) an RV space (with full hook-ups for water, electricity, phone, internet, cable, sewer, plus garbage and mail service) can be had for just over $400.

----------

America Incarcerated

I was very happy with my first ever issue of Utne, especially the unusually straight-forward and un-biased article on the issues surrounding the US prison system.  Expect a subscription after I finish this letter.

There were, however, a couple of points I wanted to add.
While it was, briefly, touched upon that everyone, regardless of circumstances, has personal choice and responsibility, it disturbed me how strong the implication was that certain circumstances "make" people commit crimes.  I am a black male, I grew up in a single parent home, on welfare and section 8 (subsidized housing), in a bad neighborhood where the sound of gun shots and police helicopters were only remarkable if they were actually on the same block as us. Not only have I not committed any violent crimes, I was never in any fights growing up, never been arrested, didn't drop out of school, etc. etc...
I don't think that anyone gets to use there living conditions as an excuse for their choices.  There is always something else a person could do to, say, make money to feed their children.

That being said, my larger issue is actually that the article did not go far enough in explaining society and history's role in creating the undeniable statistical trends which clearly parallel race lines.
While it was before any of our lifetimes, and we tend not to think of as real anything we can not personally remember, the truth is this is a very young country, and nothing in its time can be written off as ancient history. Slavery was incredibly recent: the civil war ended only 142 years ago.  (Contrast that to the time civilization has existed, around 5000 years).  That is in fact only about 2 lifetimes, or about 5 generations.
Meanwhile European Americans have had over 250 years to accumulate and pass down wealth.

In this country more than almost any other since the time of monarchies wealth is generated from already having wealth (which is literally the definition of capitalism), and inheritance is virtually unrestricted.

Most white families, (whether here from the beginning of the country, or immigrating here since then) started out with some amount of wealth (or had connections to someone here who did).  Freed slaves had literally nothing.  The reparations approved by congress never happened.  On top of that, Jim Crow and other discriminatory laws kept Blacks from accumulating any appreciable amount of wealth all the way up until the 1960s, a mere 47 years ago, less than a single lifetime.

That means that while white American families have been accumulating and passing down wealth for 10 generations, black American families are just getting started for the first time ever.

On top of that, our educational system is set up so that the primary source of funding is property and other local taxes, generally at the county level.  This means that wealthier areas are able to provide their kids with more and better equipment, computers, newer textbooks, and attract better teachers.  School which do poorly (largely due to under funding) are faced with having what federal funding is available cut - in other words, our system of penalizing under-performing schools means that the more a school needs money, the less it gets, while schools that are doing well (and therefore don't really need a bonus of federal money) gets more.

Between these two things, unrestricted inheritance and locally funded schools, is it any wonder how few people (of any color) break through the social class of their parents?  In this country we love to point out those rare success stories, such as Will Smith portraying the true story of a homeless stockbroker in The Pursuit of Happiness, but the reality is we have set up a social system that makes upward mobility all but completely unrealistic except in the rarest of cases.

The solution is actually pretty simple.  Although unfortunately I can't imagine anyone of influence daring to suggest either part any time soon given our current political climate.  One would be to essentially eliminate inheritance.  No one should be entitled to get money our resources they didn't earn.  Inheritance sets up a virtual caste system, where the luck of whom you are born to determines your chances in life.  It would be unrealistic to try to restrict it altogether, but a steeply progressive tax ranging from (say) 40% up to 75% seems to me reasonably appropriate and fair - for that matter, the same might be applied to all unearned income, which would also allow the tax rate on people who actually work and are productive to be reduced.
The second would be to make all public schools, K-12 as well as 2 years of college funded 100% on the federal level, with the same per-capita amount going to every school regardless of demographic, test scores, state, or whether it is rural or urban.

I also think that, as the author suggested, the use of drugs should be decriminalized (although the sale of many may be appropriate to remain illegal, use itself should be considered a disease) and given the current demographics this alone would go a long way to reducing the incarceration cycle in African American communities.  This may be more a symptom than a cause though. There are a myriad of other issues that relate to the social dynamics of race in this country as well.
However, I think if we were to change just those to things, a more reasonable distribution of un-earned wealth and an equal educational system, we would see major changes with in a generation or two with out having to do much further micro-management.

05 December 2007

They are a little wierd, but maybe they have a good idea or two


  • Dec 5, 2007

They are a little wierd, but maybe they have a good idea or two

The Amish, especially those of the Old Order, are probably best known for their avoidance of certain modern technologies. The avoidance of items such as automobiles and electricity is largely misunderstood. The Amish do not view technologyas evil. Individuals may petition for acceptance of a particular technology in the local community. In some communities, the church leaders meet annually to review such proposals. In others, it is done whenever necessary. Because the Amish, like some Mennonite groups, and unlike the Catholicor Anglican Churches, do not have a hierarchical governing structure, differing communities often have different ideas as to which technological items are acceptable.
Electricity, for instance, is viewed as a connection to, and reliance on, "the World", the "English", or "Yankees" (the outside world), which is against their doctrine of separation. The use of electricity also could lead to the use of worldly household appliances such as televisions, which would complicate the Amish tradition of a simple life, and introduce individualist competition for worldly goods that would be destructive of community. In certain Amish groups, however, electricity can be used in very specific situations: for example, if electricity can be produced without access to outside power lines. Twelve-volt batteries, with their limited applications, are acceptable to these groups. Electric generators can be used for welding, recharging batteries, and powering milk stirrers. In certain situations, outdoor electrical appliances may be used: lawn mowers (riding and hand-pushed) and string trimmers, for example. Some Amish families have non-electric versions of vital appliances, such as kerosene-powered refrigerators.
Amish communities often adopt compromise solutions involving technology which may seem strange to outsiders. For example, many communities will allow gas-powered farm equipment such as tillers or mowers, but only if they are pushed by a human or pulled by a horse. The reasoning is that Amish farmers will not be tempted to purchase more land in order to outcompete other farmers in their community if they still have to move the equipment manually. Many Amish communities also accept the use of chemical pesticides and GM crops, forgoing more common Amish organic farming techniques.
The Ordnung is the guide to community standards, rather than doctrine that defines sin. For example, the four Old Order Amish communities of Allen County, Indiana, are more conservative than most; they use open buggies, even during the winter, and they wear black leather shoes even in the hot summer. The restrictions are not meant to impose suffering. In the 1970s, for example, a farmer near Milan Center, Indiana, was ordered by his bishop to buy a conventional tractor. He had severe progressive arthritisand, with no sons to harness the horses for him, the tractor was seen as a need, rather than a vanity. The rest of the community continued farming with horses.
The Amish will hire drivers and vans, for example, for visiting family, monthly grocery shopping, or commuting to the workplace off the farm — though this too is subject to local regulation and variation. The practice increases the geographic reach of the Amish, and decreases isolation: a horse can travel only about 25 miles and then must rest for a considerable period, restricting the Amish to a radius of 12.5 miles from home. Moreover, a horse and buggy can only sustain 10 MPH over an extended distance and so is impractical for emergencies.[8] Regular bus service between Amish communities has been established in some areas. Hiring a taxi is forbidden on Sundays (as is any transfer of money).
The telephone is another technology whose avoidance is often misunderstood. The Amish dislike the telephone because it interferes with their separation from the world; it brings the outside world into the home; it is an intrusion into the privacy and sanctity of the family and interferes with social community by eliminating face-to-face communication. However, some Amish, such as many of those in Lancaster County, use the telephone primarily for out-going calls, but with the added restriction that the telephone not be inside the home, but rather in a phone "booth" or shanty (actually just a small out-building) placed far enough from the house as to make its use inconvenient. Commonly these private phone shanties are shared by more than one family, fostering a sense of community. This allows the Amish to control their communication and not have telephone calls invade their homes, but also conduct business as needed. In the past, the use of public pay phones in town for such calls was more common; today with dwindling availability of pay phones because of increased cellphone use by the non-Amish population, Amish communities are seeing an increase in the private phone shanties.[9] Many Amish, particularly those who run businesses, use voice mail service.[10] The Amish will also use trusted "English" neighbors as contact points for passing on family emergency messages. Some New Order Amish will use cellphones and pagers, but most Old Order Amish will not.[11]
Dress code for some groups includes prohibitions against buttons, allowing only hooks and eyes to keep clothing closed; others may allow small undecorated buttons in a dark color. In some groups, certain articles can have buttons and others cannot. The restriction on buttons is attributed in part to their association with military uniforms, and also to their potential for serving as opportunities for vain display. Straight-pins are often used to hold articles of clothing together. In all things, the aesthetic value is "plainness": clothing should not call attention to the wearer by cut, color or any other feature. Prints such as florals, stripes, polka-dots, etc. are not allowed in Amish dress, although these styles have been adopted by fellow Mennonites.
Women wear calf-length plain-cut dresses in a solid color such as blue. Aprons are often worn, usually in white or black, at home and always worn when attending church. A cape, which consists of a triangular shape of cloth, is usually worn beginning around the teenage years and pinned into the apron. In the colder months, a long woollen cloak is sported. Heavy bonnets are worn over the prayer coverings when Amish women are out and about in cold weather, with the exception of the Nebraska Amish, who do not wear bonnets. When a girl becomes available to be courted, she wears a black bonnet[citation needed]. These unmarried women also wear a white cape.[citation needed]
Men typically wear dark-colored trousers and a dark vest or coat, suspenders (Brit. braces), broad-rimmed straw hatsin the warmer months and black felt hats in the colder months. Single Amish men are clean-shaven; if they are available to court women, they will put a dent in their hat. Married men grow a beard. In some more traditional communities a man will grow a beard after he is baptized. Moustaches are not allowed, because they are associated with the military and because they give opportunity for vanity. The avoidance of military styles has origins in the religious and political persecution in 16th and 17th century Europe. Men of the nobility and upper classes, who often served as military officers, wore moustaches but not beards, and the pacifist Amish avoid moustaches because of this association. The wearing of beards, however, is largely based on the same beliefs against shaving that lead Hasidic Jews and conservative Muslims not to shave their beards. (Amish men who wear beards do not abhor shaving: some men grow a fringe of beard around the edge of the face while shaving the hair off the front of the face, including the moustache. These men refrain from shaving the throat)
During the summer months, the majority of Amish children go barefoot, including to school. The prevalence of the practice is attested in the Pennsylvania Deitsch saying, "Deel Leit laafe baarfiessich rum un die annre hen ken Schuh." (Some people walk around barefooted, and the rest have no shoes.) The amount of time spent barefoot varies, but most children and adults go barefoot whenever possible.