Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Millennials Need Look No Further Than Here

And just keep in mind this one fact: In order for this to be a really different third party its going to have to have some deep commitment to a completely different set of ideals than we've seen so far in the traditional two parties. Because we know what they stand for; even if it's only lackluster support from the Democrats; the protection of the entrenched money interests that have ruled not only our country now for so long, but the rest of the planet now, for all practical purposes.

Not only are you going to get something as deeply committed to real, substantive policies as my new Libertarian Socialists, they will be policies founded on a comprehensive new analysis of just where we are now with all of this new technology making life so much more complicated. Because that is what has happened to Capitalism. All of those technologies have added to the fact that we are now in a completely new operating environment. One that demands not only new ways of structuring social organization, but new ways for us to be involved with how we keep the social covenant going; precisely because new ways of storing, moving and utilizing information give us a different way of seeing and understanding reality itself. A way that can no longer tolerate the mechanistic, segmented, and narrowly focused thinking that formed Capitalism.

That is why we can no longer consider things in isolation, but as integrated parts of complex, interactive systems; systems where pretty much everything else can have an affect on any other part of the greater matrix of interlinked systems overall; hence the advent of holistic thinking, and the need to understand our special purpose within this complexity.

This is also why these posts come to you as a combination of two blogs; one to discuss the obsolescence of Capitalism, and the other to discuss the related philosophy that I had to develop to go along with this comprehensive call for change.

We need this new party as well because it is likely to be the only way we are ever going to muster the collective will we will need in order to save this planet, and the biodiversity that made us possible in the first place. And we can do that because this may wall be the only way we can work a Grand Compromise between the forces of the Political Right, and Left.

I urge you to give this considerable thought. Do you really think we'll be able to compromise our way out now with the way money has so poisoned every aspect of civil discourse, and any kind of commitment to the greater good, as well as to individual rights? I certainly do not see how. And I defy anybody to come up with a formulation, given our existing circumstances, that will work.

The choice, as always, dear reader is yours.

Millennial poll: Strong majority want a third political party

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Yes He Is

And Thank You Mr. Olbermann. It was passionate expression well needed.

Trump is Finished | The Resistance with Keith Olbermann | GQ

This Display Of Civil Government Ready To Prostate Itself Before The Money Men Is Truly Disgusting

And the one example of how Chicago was going to have all worker income taxes (over a billion dollars) given to Amazon as an incentive is disgusting with a capital D.

How have we let ourselves come to believe that the current corrupt, and mutated, economic system we've been saddled with on the spurs of history is somehow sacrosanct simply because it was how things were done in the past, is a real mystery to me. After all, we used to believe that bleeding people was the best way to get rid of the vapors that were making them sick. Evidently bleeding people dry and convincing them that this is the best for all concerned is still a time honored proposition. Seeing it in that perspective, though, certainly gives a new view to what trickle down might actually be all about.

In any case, though, how can anybody deny that this absurdity is any way to continue trying to having a civil society? How can letting things come to these sorts of interactions be anything but the death throes of an old social contract. A contract, of course, that the powerful think is just fine and dandy.

So the situation is, on the surface, quite simple. If you like being bled dry then I guess you should continue prostrating yourself on the altar of big money. If you think this has gone too far then it's time to start doing something about it. And as far as I am concerned the only thing to do is form a completely new political party: The Libertarian Socialists. The party that would be dedicated to forming the Grand Compromise, eliminating Capitalism, and renegotiating our Constitution so that people don't have to associate with anyone they don't want to; reforming ourselves into a Federation of nearly self sufficient city states whose citizens run things themselves, sharing in the labor to keep it all going so as to be able to share not only city instrumentality, but the net output for personal production of needed end use items. The choice is yours.


A review of some of the bids to woo Amazon’s HQ2 to other cities and states shows it’s not all about the money. In some cases democracy itself is a bargaining chip.

Monday, November 27, 2017

A Democracy Depends On An Informed Electorate

And whether you lie to denigrate the various institutions of the press, so as to try and taint them as a credible source, purely for your own manipulative gain; or whether you restrict the flow of information by various economic means, so as to control what the people will know, and not know; you are an enemy of Democracy, and the informed freedom it is supposed to provide.

Morning Joe: Everyone Must Condemn President Donald Trump's Press Attacks

With Just A Degree And A Half Change From Where We Were 15 Years Ago We Will Be Waist Deep In Very Bad Potential

This chart from Vox (via Digg) isn't the easiest thing to break down and understand fully, but once you get the hang of it, it quickly becomes quite chilling.

That degree and a half I mentioned means a change from where we were (approximately) back in the period ending in 2005. You can also see the new indication that the period from 2003 to 2012 already shows an increase; something like a quarter of a degree relative to the right hand side of the graph, with seven more years of data collection to work with. That would suggest that, with the six years of data collection we're about to start digesting since, that another, at least near quarter, degree of change might already have transpired. That would then also suggest that we've already ticked up most of the half degree part of the amount indicated in this post's title. And in fourteen years after that, we'll be up another half degree. Assuming, of course, that the rate of change itself stays the same.

That puts us in the two degree change band in the graph and, as the Vox article makes quite plain:

In short, panic

There’s a lot to glean from this graph, but here’s the takeaway: We’ve already crossed over into moderate risk on the first three RFCS. Pushing temperatures up 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels — the target at which the world claims to want to stop warming — puts us at high risk on the first three and moderate risk on the last two. That is the best-case scenario.
These are scientists, of course, and they tend to hedge their predictions with a lot of caveats precisely because they are very careful about what they feel they can declare from aggregate data concerning very complex, chaotic systems. And you certainly can't blame them for that. The upshot here, in any case, is that these are undoubtedly very conservative predictions; at least in my opinion. And so my back of the envelop conjecture concerning a quarter degree increase every seven years could be actually something more like a quarter every six (it could also be actually more than seven, but I think that the much lesser probability).

Being in the two degree band means "Extreme Weather Events" are in high danger red. "Distribution of Impact" risks are nearly red. And "Global Aggregate Impacts" are heading into orange, where you finally see both the biodiversity icon, and the economic impact icon; these of course after our food, and water are already in red danger zones.

And yet our economists, and politicians, think that each quarter down the road will just be another chance to make more money in our wonderfully expanding economy. You know. The one that never seems to respond very well to uncertainty, or disruptions. The one where the people with the money don't want to pay for anything that doesn't at least offer them the chance of making more.

If you think this puts us in a good position to handle what is coming then you have been drinking in far too much of the crazy-aid juice that a mutated economic operating system now excels in producing. Enjoy whatever desperate high you indulge in now because I know for a fact that the going up is not going to be worth the coming down.

All the risks of climate change, in a single graph

See Also:


A new study shows that science models projecting higher warming might be the most reliable.


It's likely that at the time this was filmed, the polar bear only had a few hours to live.


In a remote region of Antarctica known as Pine Island Bay, 2,500 miles from the tip of South America, two glaciers hold human civilization hostage.

Disappearing Arctic ice could make California droughts worse


Sunday, November 26, 2017

I Refer To Our Current De Facto Ex President For A Reason

The most obvious reason is already well documented so I won't bother with that, but the other is only beginning to be talked about; and that of course is what comes after.

And the thing is, it is not just Trump's take on whatever it is he's actually advocating (because it probably changes by the minute in that pile of gray he calls a mind), it is also his hell spawn, Steve Bannon, that you have to consider; which I think is becoming more clearly his own kind of crazy, white nationalist form of authoritarian, racist, isolationism.

The two key points that both of the authors present in the PBS interview linked below are one: The terrible collapse of community indicated by Mr. Ornstein, and secondly: the lack of specifics in what Mr. Ornstein suggests might be Democratic Party responses.

The fact of the matter is that a huge portion, of both the demise of community, and the fact that the left has no real response, save more piecemeal reforms, stems from the inability to come to terms with the fundamental inability of Capitalism to respond to so many profound changes in how we can now create, store, and retrieve information; as well as how we can now put that information to work.

Because of this whole communities have been made economically irrelevant simply because they can't "market" themselves to the degree of profitability the money moguls demand. And people become ever more separated by insanely divergent, economic self interests. As such we bog down not only in continuous fights over who pays and who benefits, we put various employment groups in impossible situations where they either spew poison on their neighbors in one form or another, or take away the competitiveness of their neighbors, to bolster their own; because to do otherwise risks having you and yours either living near the mean streets, or sub existing on them. And all of that because of both an insane profit mentality to begin with, but also because of the insane competition that such rapidly changing competitive factors introduce.

We simply can't work to be more cooperative unless we change not only the nature of work, but the nature of what it is we are working for. That is why I must encompass this advocacy as a part of both a Philosophy, and a Economic analysis. And also why true, comprehensive change, must include new thinking in both philosophy and economics. And so, in conclusion, you can see quite clearly why "Where We Need To Go, Capitalism Won't take us."

Norm Ornstein and E.J. Dionne on the American divide and where we should turn next

Double-barreled Bannon: He targets both Mississippi GOP senators

See Also:

Where Are Democrats As GOP Prepares Vote On 'Pro-Rich' Tax Cut? | Morning Joe

Friday, November 24, 2017

And The Crazy Is Just Going To Keep On Getting Crazier

Because crazy sells. And obscenity sells. And horror sells. And... Well, you get the idea. They use all of the base instincts after all to induce the very kinds of frenzied consumption we've put a color coded name too (with no doubt as to its origins from the Dark Side) a while back; though even that has become insufficient (there'll just be supposed price slashing all of the time, though slashing from what exactly will always be a mystery; other than the reasonable assumption that a front end number will always be padded).

And worst of all we are awash in the messages to want almost 24/7 now. What else is one to expect when the ability to make keeps increasing so spectacularly. And yet the fools refuse to see that more hits to the supply side vein isn't going to help spending very much at all.

Stay tuned. You think this year was crazy. Just wait. I, for one, think the commentators will finally have to give up saying "unprecedented."

YouTuber ‘Toy Freaks’ may cause psychological damage to his kids, experts say

See Also:


America is behaving like a doomed and desperate convicted felon, holed up smoking as much crack as possible before we have to report to jail.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Can You Hear Me Now?

Money Always Ends Up Dictating The Rules.

What will end up flowing to wherever will depend solely on the profit being made. And you are quite unlikely to ever be the beneficiary. Unless you feel confident, for some unfathomable reason, that what they choose to make available as "product" will be anything other than a money maker for them (forgetting for the moment that even a broken clock gets the time right twice a day).

So. just sit there and continue to do nothing of substance. That's exactly what they are hoping for.

The end is near for Obama-era net neutrality rules

See Also:

We Can’t Trust Facebook to Regulate Itself

Sunday, November 19, 2017

What Puts People At The Top One Percent?

It would seem to be controlling access to the right professions, as well as controlling all aspects of financing itself; especially as it relates to the laws that govern such things. The healthcare part probably comes into the fray for the obvious reason that we'd all like to continue taking whatever advantage we might have, no matter how marginal it might be.

It also seems to me that someone who was proposing the deemphasis of specialization, in this context, might just be onto something here. Of course that also might just be my bias in these things. Still, it does give some interesting perspective.

Myths of the 1 Percent: What Puts People at the Top

Friday, November 17, 2017

Is This What You Think Will Replace 8 Million Retail Workers?

Better hope to the gods not.


Who delivers Amazon orders? Increasingly, it's plainclothes contractors with few labor protections, driving their own cars, competing for shifts on the company's own Uber-like platform.

See Also:



Uber paid hackers, hid data breach affecting 57 million people

Liability As We Have Known It Is Doomed In The New Operating Environment We Now Face

This stems from the situation that reminds us that it is not just a new environment of expressive instrumentality (the vast changes in media, information, and the ways that they can now affect our physical reality), but also the accumulated effects of centuries of commercialized, industrial throughput (encompassing all of the production, and consumption) on our planet's many natural systems (which would include social systems, as well as the various physical process systems).

I make this claim for liability based off of the linked Bloomberg article below. In it do we see the coming absurdity of a new legal doctrine concerning the "Takings Clause" of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment; articulated by Justice Ginsburg that (quoting from the article J.V.):

...the government should compensate a property owner for a taking if it has interfered with a “reasonable, investment-backed expectation.” That is, if it was reasonable to expect that a home you invested in wouldn’t flood, but it does, and a court finds the government responsible, then compensation could be due...

 Whereupon, of course, it becomes a question of what is "reasonable" if so many systems may be sliding, or are near sliding, into various forms of cascade effect, as one sustaining process after another alters profoundly, or ceases to exist altogether, under the onslaught of accumulated human endeavor. Whereupon as well change begins to accelerate far beyond any system to handle; prepared or not.

As the article reiterates, it is a flood zone, bayou area to begin with. One that reasonable people decided the government had to take a role in managing (back in the sixties). This in turn leads to certain assumptions being made on old weather data, so that insurance norms could be put down, so as to not make them be mandatory. These people were told a certain set of odds and then made investments based on those odds. If the odds are always going to be changing, however, who's fault is it?

What is especially interesting here, for someone with my perspective, is that what we ought to have here is at the basic foundation of enlightened self interest that should guide a Libertarian, Socialist form of government (at least as I see it): that these people should be helped regardless of fault. And, in fact, if you got rid of Capitalism, a tremendous portion of why you would want to spend so much time, and effort, in the first place to figure such things out (where it is usually only the lawyers who make out), would just vanish. The union of communities, as well as the individual communities involved themselves, would automatically be the unified payers, as well as joint holders of all liability. This would be, in fact, an essential aspect of the new social contract (hammered out through, no doubt, tough negotiations within the redefinition of the Constitution).

And let me be clear here. This sense of "enlightened self interest" stems from what ought to be the obvious fact now that everything affects everything else. It is so precisely because of so much change in the scope and power of our new forms of instrumentality. It is, in every sense of the phrase, a new fact of life; unless, of course, we fall back to some dark age, apocalyptic fantasy; where most, if not all, technology is lost. A horrible fate indeed, but one, given how severe climate change might get without correction, that might still qualify for the "we should be so lucky" type of assessment.

Instability is our common enemy now exactly because things have already become, and are likely to continue to become, more unstable. As such we must do everything we can, within the guidelines of a thoughtful, and caring balance, to alleviate such instability. In this poverty, and deprivation of whatever form, is just as important as too much carbon in the atmosphere; too much competition for markets and resources just as poisonous as the chemicals used to do fracking. And the more we can find ways to tolerate others (even if their beliefs are onerous) and cooperate (where the rule is every individual has the right to vote with their feet, just as every community as a right to live as it sees fit, just as long as it is a case of no specific harm, no foul) to the greatest degree possible.

Make no mistake. This will require an arduous rework of our constitution. That's just the way it has to be. Get that through your heads. It is absolutely mandatory. Just as we must mobilize ourselves to the maximum degree any other grave threat might require. We must do this because we must all be involved in working to redefine, and reorganize, every community that exists in this nation. Just as the Federal Government itself must be redefined, and reorganized.

This is what you must do if you want to have any hope of surviving what is likely to come; or of being able to do so in something that still qualifies as a decent standard of living. Wait too long and events will simply dictate what we collapse into, when the truly serious feces starts hitting us in about ten to twenty years from now (or sooner). Given the trends so far the likelihood is that it will be one hell of a authoritarian nightmare. It will have to be in order to force order of some form or another; and even that won't be able to survive the dire rise of oceans, or the creation of vast swaths of completely uninhabitable land, or water; as well as the many social dislocations, and bloody armed conflicts,  indefinitely.

Better think long and hard on this one before you decide to continue doing nothing.

The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else

See Also:


Experts worry that if insurers start to pull out of full-prone seaside communities, it could cause a crisis worse than 2008.

See Also:


As climate liability lawsuits rise, industry forces are fighting back.