Modern Polymathism

Buying Your Freedom

    In times when slavery was still in full swing, there were often laws or norms that said they could buy their freedom from their master. They literally bought their freedom. It was very hard to do so. It was a considerable sum, but sometimes they did it. Fast forward to today, there is no true slavery in America, however, there is something tantamount to it: jobs.

    Most people might find this notion absurd since our society is so based around industrial social roles, but really modern times are the exception, not the rule. A little over a hundred years ago the family farm was the most widespread employment in America. A family would work the land and live off it. This was a small business if their ever was one.

    Going back even farther to Ancient Greece it was considered beneath any free man to work for another. The only exception to this was public service, which was noble. I will mention, for fairness, that the Greeks had slaves to do their bidding which helped that system out.

    What happened after 1900 was the maturation of the industrial revolution which led to very large companies being established which never existed before. This altered the new immigrants' sleep cycle and their whole way of life. They would build their homes near the factory so they could walk to work. Everything revolved around the factory. I see no real difference between the lifestyles of these men and slaves of earlier times. In fact, often they were treated worse. You could work an immigrant to death and then have him replaced the next day. Slaves were more expensive than that.

    Today, I see people living much the same way. Sure, we have our nice cars and homes, but we're still beholden to the man. We're told if we work hard and play the game we'll get into management and make good money. However, those 20-30 years will be used making someone else rich. There is a way out though. Some times you can earn enough money over your expenses to get out of the "Rat Race" This reminds me of how the slaves bought their freedom.

    I would like to live a different way though. I want to have the Greek notion of working for no one, and the ability to not need work period. It was Confucius who said, "Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life." I believe deeply in this philosophy, but I believe there's more than that. You see Confucius lived thousands of years ago when men still owned their own businesses for work (be it farming, blacksmithing, etc.).

Today, it needs to be said that you must, "Choose a business you love - and you will never live a day in bondage."

Of Life & Mediocrity

     I was in a group meeting the other day, and we got off track and started talking about movies. The one kid was a big movie buff, and I asked him what got him into movies. His response was both predictable and somewhat disheartening. He said that he liked movies  because of the fantasy that you're able to have from watching and how you can put yourself in their shoes and imagine a world more interesting than your own.
    This hit a nerve with me (ever the lover realism). I asked him if he thought life was boring by comparison and he fully agreed. He went on to say he thought that life was dull and he'd rather watch a movie. I asked if when he was traveling abroad on Semester at Sea if he had similar experience to his movie watching, and he agreed.
    The conversation ended there. I was still stimulated, and I knew I had to blog about it. It amazes me how many people would rather be living other lives than their own. This to me indicated that they've basically given up on this life and have taken to washing over their brains with a elixir that gives them pleasure. Whether it be movies, alcohol, whatever. They need more than life experience to be happy. I find this very sad. Why not make your life into what you want to make it.
    For myself, while I don't lead a perfect life (who does?) I wouldn't change lives with anyone, and I sincerely say that. Perhaps it's because my ego is a little too big for its own good, but I feel like I can take on the world. There are so many gifts I've been blessed with and so many opportunities at my doorstep I would be a fool to change the hand I was dealt for one of a better suit. Because that would be the only change for the positive, appearance. If I had money I'd drive a better car and wear better clothing, but thats about it. The negative would be that I might have never grown up knowing how to think for myself or even having ambitions - knowing my trust fund would carry me through to the end.

Thank God for life - Those fools who waste it with fantasy don't know what they're missing.

This Hidden Alcove

    The blogosphere was alight yesterday with an article from Wired magazine called , "Do you Write Like a Terrorist?" It's about how the government has teamed up with some research institutions to sweep the web with algorithms that can purportedly tell with some degree of accuracy whether you're a threat to the United States. When they say this they want the U.S. to be construed as  the people of this country, but don't believe them, it's the government itself.
     I now feel like Winston in 1984. You he had an alcove in his apartment away from the Telescreen where he could write his journal (considered illegal) about his life as his little way of maintaining sanity and perhaps as something to be discovered by someone in the future. From 1984:

        "The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed--would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper--the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."

    There was always this inner knowledge that Winston had that he knew he would get caught. I think news like the story above has a similar effect on me. I write what I think and generally it's anti-establishment. It is not, however, dangerous in the least. Neither was what Winston wrote, but in 1984's totalitarian nightmare Thoughtcrime was something you got "disappeared" over. Indeed, he and his accomplice were sent away to a secret prison (Gitmo anyone?)

    I can only pray that before our country becomes the stuff we only read in the dystopian novels, that some force should save us. That force must come from us - the people. In fact the Proles were named by Winston as the only hope for Oceania. I hope I turn out better than Winston did (that is drugged and psychologically reprogrammed).   

The Essence of Irony

Bill O'Reilly's talking point is:

"No one deserves to be fed propaganda by the news media" (paraphrased)

    I found this absolutely hilarious. I love how Fox News likes to pretend they have some inside view of the stories of the day, and that they glaze their own bias over the already biased and poorly framed news.

Isn't Progress Awesome...

One Gigabyte: 20 years ago & today

http://sd4.sd-lj.si/diggit/20yago.jpg

Link: Ten Reasons You Should Never Get a Job

Great article by Steve Pavlina:

Ten Reasons You Should Never Get a Job

The Book of Regret

    I noticed recently that whenever I have a major shift in or addition to my thoughts I tend to end up with a (or usually many) bad book. When I started reading and exploring my first hobbies I always would start with a simple and broad texts and move on to better books with went more in depth on specific aspects of the hobby. First it was science and technology, this interest took a long time to grow into a relatively deep (for a generalist) understanding of the topics.
    However, the end of my freshman year in college changed my course from that point to today. You see, as the story goes, I had flunked Calculus 2 and had to take it over the summer. When I took it over the summer I found that I still hated it, and it never held my attention. Then I looked deeper into myself. I looked to see if I was really enjoying my engineering classes, and the answer was: I wasn't. It was very hard for me to accept.
    You see, my whole like to this point, from my earliest days of true cognitive activity, had been one of thinking that when I grew up I was going to design great things and change the world. I always thought this was the only path to this end. I was wrong. During that moment of clarity, I stared at a hard fact of my life's plan. I was going to have to put up with 3 years of harsh undergrad, and then probably another 5 years of doctoral work to reach my goal. I would be 27 years old, and only then would I be able to find work at a college or in industry. I realized that at this point I really couldn't start out (as I once naively thought) on my own. The equipment only is too expensive, but at this height of research one man could never keep up with such an ambitious goal.
      It was then I started my interest in business, more specifically having my own. That day after class I drove to a Barnes and Noble. Went past the science / tech area to the business section, an area I'd never thought to visit before. I read through many books; I was there for at least an hour getting a feel for it. By no means was this effort good though. I eventually purchased a book by Donald Trump (it's hard for me to even admit this now). I read the book quickly, and it seemed informative. However, as I progress through the years I learned much more and found Trump's books and the thousands like them were just warmed over versions of the same matter teeming with get-rich-quick and other you-can-do-it-just-try types of books.
    I still have the book, most likely because I wouldn't sell it because I'd have to admit that I bought it. Whenever I walk by that book self I cringe a little inside because it's interesting to see what you start with, and by the same token how far you've come. I won't even mention the set of books by Wade Cook, the con-artist which I won't even display because they're so appalling intellectually. Only my hesitance to burn books were they saved.
    A similar incident happened a few months ago to me as well. I bought a book called Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right. This book was an impulse buy, again. It came at a time when I was under personal confusion from the Neo-Con Republican views vs. the originalist conservative ones. I was listening to both sides and hating the corruption and stagnation of it all. It was then that I bought this book. This book was very well marketed both in its proliferation of message and in coercion to buy. I find this book to be predatory in its nature being all hype, and as I hear no content to note. Later, I found the true light in the libertarian philosophy of government. Ron Paul is my new hero for his stand against the forces of tyranny and covert oppression.
    The book to counter the aforementioned: The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. I'll be picking this gem up tomorrow, and I'm most excited. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THIS SYNOPSIS BY THE UK's "GUARDIAN".

 

The Nature of Man, Animals & Capitalism

    I was in a conversation recently with some people the other day about the green movement and the conversation shifted to a topic more to my liking: the nature of man. It shifted in this direction because one of them remarked about how we need to create markets for CO2 to give an incentive to companies to sequester it so that the free market can still work its ways. I believe at this point someone went down the path of socialism, and I had to interject my own views on that topic.

    Some of my favorite ideas often come seemingly out of nowhere during conversation. I think that's a major reason why I love a good debate and will argue with anyone about anything. During my rebuke of socialism, and collectivism in general, I had to first refer to the fact the humans by nature act in their own interest, not in the collective whole's.

    To me this is derived straight from the "id" as Freud would call it. That being, the animal side of all of that. That which drives our basest needs such as thirst, hunger, etc. To me capitalism is the way of nature. Look at mammals, most of the higher mammals are territorial or at least have an idea of what is "mine" For instance, I often see birds (I know not mammals) fighting over scraps of bread, and they steal it from one another. The one who gets pilfered is not in the least satisfied.

    To higher animals, lions live in a society that is based on pure tyrannical meritocracy. The most able lions brawl to become the head of the pack, and also for the mating rights (again pseudo property). Anytime an incumbent wishes to challenge the one on the throne it happens and to the winner goes the spoils. In this system, if another lion were to take the killed prey of another lion there would be a fight to determine dominance which would resolve this. Again, it's very similar to our human world.

    Look at Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, you'll find he believes the humans' natural state is that of unrest and infighting (just like rival packs of lions). He proposed a repressive tyranny in order to keep order (hence the want of life and security of the individual coerces them against breaking the law, much as our laws do, but to an even greater extent). This is to keep human nature in line. In Lord of the Flies, we see a fictitious study of a group of kids acting on their base instincts, and it ends up in death and destruction.

    This is the reason government exists, to enforce our basic rights - nothing more.

    Collectivists would have you believe that human instinct can be reversed. The ideal communist citizen was considered one who sacrificed himself for the betterment of the whole. When this was attempted the production that came from the collectively motivated workforce was awful. There were many examples of factories remaining in operation even though their output was so flawed it was worthless. I remember one tractor factory whose tractors were worth more as scrap metal than as a tractor; they were that bad. This is because if your salary isn't based on performance you can slack off, and if everyone were to do this then you get a company with serious production problems.

    In Christianity, we see many examples of the inherent evil in all of us. All sin I can think of is derived directly or indirectly from this animal which our soul inhabits. Stealing, lust, gluttony - they all come from the id. The striving toward a sinless lifestyle will therefore bring you great discipline and enable you to fight your primal instinct.

    We need to realize that beyond all the economic projections of why capitalism is right; we can find through simple deduction that it is so. It's interesting to see where God, Darwin, and Atheists agree. Perhaps, that means this is correct.

Shift Happens...

Check out this video. A very interesting look into but a slice of the shift our human race will be dealing with. The end has some nuts figures.

glumbert.com - Shift Happens

The Propaganda Model

    I just finished reading Herman & Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". It is an amazing and eye opening book. The basic premise is that the media in the U.S. is controlled implicitly and sometimes explicitly by the ruling class, or as I call them: The Oligarchy.

 They've made a model they call the "Propaganda Model" which says that the content the media prints is implicitly filtered by the journalists themselves through coercion from the top. This takes the form of 5 filters which are forces that censor the flow of news down to what get dropped, printed, and reprinted.

The Five Filters:

1.) Size and concentrated ownership of the media
2.) Advertisers as primary revenue source
3.) Reliance on government, business, and "experts" (who are known as having views approved by the forces in power)
4.) Flak - a means of punishing the media that does not conform to the rules
5.) One opposing group whose doctrine is considered to be universally evil

Now, I'll explain how each of these are used.

1.) Size and concentration of ownership:

    The concentration insures that only the most elite in society have ownership of the media itself. In the book, extensive research was done to show ownership of the media and what they found was that it is indeed owned by the elites or those (such as big time bankers) who have aligned interests with the elites. This eliminates dissent among all the groups of the media by definition.

    The size works two fold. One, it makes the cost of starting a new media organization too prohibitive of everyone but the elites. Two, it allows each company to be involved in many mediums so that all media is disseminated efficiently and consistently.

     Some might point out that not all media themselves represent the same views. In a comparison between the Fox News, CNN and the BBC you will see distinct chances. As you go down that list the views will get more leftist overall. However, this is only reflects of the varying views of the elite themselves, not the common people. If you look at the similarities in news coverage the general consensus of the media becomes cleared. Both in the selection of stories and the time spent covering them the media often are in virtual agreement with one another. This leads to the next filter.

2.) Advertising as the primary source of revenue:

    The reason the news covered is the same from company to company is so that the size of the target audience and its demographics of the advertising are maximized. Hence the reason Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton are on so much: ratings. These in turn allow them to charge more for an ad spot.

    It goes beyond that though. The stories themselves are filtered via the advertisers. I remember that   CNN, after having Michael Moore on for his documentary "Psycho", had on an expert from a pharma-friendly organization on to fact check Moore. Not that this is bad, but it's an obvious anti-blowback measure toward the pharma companies who are some of the biggest advertisers on their station.

3.) Reliance on government, business, and approved experts

    In the book it shows how many organizations provide what they refer to as subsidized journalism. For example, the government provides press releases & speeches ahead of time to save the media effort. Businesses provide press releases and even news making equipment to the media. I was in the JP Morgan trading floor the other day, and I was shown the area where all the JPM info was televised by the news media.

    Interestingly, they view is that the experts that come onto the programs as guesses are considered experts because they have a reliable, PC, and acceptable opinions. These provide less risk than many radicals, even if they get the ratings. Michael Moore can again be used here for the same case. He attracts a lot of viewers (and hence $$$), however he is a risky guy to have on. CNN thought he would be on his good behavior, but their bets didn't pay. Many of viewers they attracted were now repulsed, but the advertisers were sufficed.

    Moreover, the experts they have are often brought to expert status by the media themselves. An example in the book was of many ex-communist sympathizers who before could never get on for both views and lack of resume, but with the reversal of views these fringe people were brought on very often for views which were not of the expert nature.

4.) Flak

    Flak is any negative feedback from the viewing audience or other public groups. This can be in many forms such as e-mail, letters, etc. and also comes from a variety of people and groups. The effect this has on the media is that they see their viewer base (and $$$) and others of importance going away from them. The authors contend that many organizations (they have in-depth info on many) are made for the almost explicit purpose of using flak to keep the media in line. These organizations operate under the guise of being watchdog groups. However, they are often funded by those of the oligarchy and others of the elites.

5.) Evil Opposing Doctrine

    The authors originally called this the "anti-communist" filter. However, this is dated and can probably be replaced by "terrorist" today. However, for the use of a generally applicable framework I've used the "opposing doctrine" term. This opposing force is then used as a scapegoat for the media, government, and the rest of the oligarchy to refer to in the news as way to justify there actions. This filter can then be used to create scares over communism, terrorism, and other such forces.

My Conclusions

    I'd like to say that I think this book is a very accurate look at the current situation. It should be required reading for everyone who cares about the future of this country. I would recommend at the very least to read chapters 1,2, & 7. The rest of the book is a lot of case studies that I admit I only read the opening few pages of each sub-section because it's very in depth and un-needed unless you're doing academic research.