TACKER: barnacle () SUBJECT: .. Cell phones DATE: 10-Dec-04 18:17:29 HOST: sverige io, 'cell phones' seems like a topic you might rant against, if you didn't own one. Is this the case? Be honest with dr. Barnacle :> actually, I used to own one (this is so sad) when I just graduated from college and thought I could get a job in 'web development' without knowing anything about computers except how to photoshop heads onto bodies and make bad pages with dreamweaver. I even went out and bought a pda/phone from some of those cocksucker slimebag comissioned salespeople, who were very reluctant to help me when I wanted to return it. I then opted for a 'no frills' phone, and printed the number on some new buisness cards I had printed for $50 (again, so sad). the only person to ever call me, after I put my resume on monster.com or something like that, was the representative of some people engineering a pyramid scheme. i never used my cell phone. When my friends would come into town, they would all use it, because they are normal people with normal social lives. But when they left town, my cell phone fell back into disuse. Eventually, i ran out of student loan money to pay the $45.00 a month, so I gave up my phone (not without a struggle with sprint, with whom I had to threaten litigation before they'd release me from my 'contract'). so, in short, I hate fucking everything, and want to leave a trail of bloody, torn flesh behind my utter anhilation of human civilzation. back to cell phones: I guess if you have some disposable income and don't mind being reachable wherever you go, then they're fine.
This morning, I enjoyed a superb eye-booger harvest -- the best in recent memory. Not only were there generous deposits at each of the four corners to be gingerly picked-out with a fingertip, but rubbing my eyes yielded additional bounty. A great start to a great day.
I wonder why some mornings are more eye-boogery than others.
I drew an analogy today. A problem with me is that I'm not very well-read. I get all of my material for digestion from web pages and talking to people. If I were to try to catch up and become better-read, I would have to make up for 12 years of my adult life spent ignoring books. The only way I could conceive of it would be if I could somehow learn to enjoy the process of reading. But, this seems very unlikely. I think I'm just doomed to be poorly-read.
The analogy is in my work-history. It's been so bad for so long that no-one is willing to hire me. Getting started on building this history seems like an impossible, insurmountable task -- very similar to starting the process of becoming well-read.
But, who cares? These things are unimportant.
Happy birthday to me
I listened to condoleeza rice lecture and answer questions on c-span this past evening. Some of what she said was nonsense (notably 'the united states has no obligation to honor the kyoto protocol because third world nations don't honor it' and 'the cuban missile crisis is a justification for continuing economic sanctions against cuba'), but a lot of her words were cogent and coherent.
She talked about the global economy, and how it is necessary in this interdependent structure for countries to 'find their niche'(india in software development, for instance). The international economy is a market economy, with countries behaving very much like individuals. It isn't possible to force central-planning on the global economy, and evenly distribute resources across all of the nations of the world, simply because there is no world government -- the balance of international power is controlled by forces of competitive nationalism, not a governing body. The nations of the world are forced, by their position as opposing players in an interdependent structure with no absolute directive, to compete with one another capitalistically. In this model, nations with centrally-planned economies (cuba, north korea, the former soviet union and eastern bloc countries) are going to lose out, because of the way the model is defined.
It's silly to credit gorbachev (and even sillier to credit reagan) with the 'fall of communism' -- it's simply that centrally-planned economies cannot survive in a global marketplace that is necessarily capitalistic. Why is it necessarily so? I don't know -- but that's the way they behave, and have always behaved. Maybe our planetary civilization is still young and primitive, or maybe that's simply 'human nature'. I can speculate, but that's all -- all we know is that that's the way it's always been done, for some reason. Inductive logic forces us to accept the statement, 'nations behave competitively towards one another.'
The other day I talked about laissez-faire and its role in the wealth of countries like the united states, and how this wealth is responsible for the relatively high standard of living for the american 'poor'. Besides domestic laissez-faire, another factor in the great relative wealth of the united states is capitalistically-executed foreign policy. Is this the way a nation must behave? Does it have a responsibility to globally redistribute its resources? Possibly, but for the most part nations do not.
The global economy is a market, and it's naturally fallen into a market model because there is no enforcement -- there isn't a world government that redistributes wealth on an international scale. Perhaps there should be, but that's irrelevant. And, in this inherently capitalistic global economy, it seems obvious that the best way for any nation to prosper is to pursue capitalistic domestic as well as foreign policy. At this point in history, socialism, anarchy and communism are pipe dream utopias, because they simply can't survive in a world that's governed by a laissez-fair international market, obviously so because it cannot be regulated -- there's no king of the world to issue policy. Economic central-planning for nations isn't realistic in an unregulated world market.
Economically speaking, freedom leads to oppression. If there's no one around to say 'hey, india...you're taking all the software-development jobs away from american CS graduates...ease off!' then this represents a form of global economic anarchy -- there's no directive, only market demand. Some people lose out (like the american IT graduates) unless they're willing to adapt to said market. The problem is, there are always going to be some people who aren't able to function in a market. People who are crazy, or stupid -- call them what you want to call them -- are going to be unable to thrive under any open market, under the freedom and independence that are paid so much lip service. These people are going to need to be cared for to some degree, or allowed to die off.
The problem with a capitalistic model of international competition is that some countries are going to lose out, just like some individuals will lose out under a system of domestic capitalism (relatively speaking -- the losers in the usa are probably better off than the winners in nigeria). So, there is overall going to be a lot of human suffering, and a few countries are going to win out big against the majority of others. As is often the case, the argument of economic 'left' vs 'right' comes down to an debate on whether one believes there to be a limited or unlimited amount of money in the world. And, the answer to this question is only forthcoming if one can properly define money. Work? Natural resources? Value? Perhaps some combination of these and other abstract or near-abstract factors.
We have the planetary resource-capability to make sure everyone on earth is warm, fed, and able to reproduce. Unfortunately, these things called 'nation states' get in the way when they take more than their share. There are certainly limited resources on the planet, and there is certainly a limited amount of work that a human being can do. Value, on the other hand, is limitless; one sheet of canvas with some splotches of linseed oil and the name 'van gogh' scrawled on it is valued the same as food for -- I don't know -- 10,000 people for a week.
So, I think value screws up the logic of money, even though value is generally produced by rarity. But, of course, there is no other empty pepsi can PRECISELY like the one I have on my computer table, yet it's not worth $1,000,000. To use a less-ridiculous example, there are no other paintings like the three I painted and that are hanging on my mother's wall. And yet, they aren't worth $1,000,000 either. Well, maybe they are, to my mother -- even though if someone offered her $999,999 for those paintings, she might give them up.
I digress. I think most people would agree that since we (the inhabitants of the earth) have the capacity to feed and shelter everyone, that everyone should be sheltered and fed. This isn't going to happen under a market of global capitalism. And a market of global capitalism seems very, very, perhaps utterly, unlikely to change, barring the imposition of an alien planetary governing body. Or, maybe I'm wrong -- maybe people will start to realize that capitalism is not good for the world, and that it causes people to starve, suffer and die.
I suppose everyone on the planet could come to realize this, and come to value everyone's life as equally as they value their own, and stop taking more than they need, but this seems pretty unlikely, too. Or maybe it's not -- I don't know what the future will bring. Maybe with enough education (read: liberal indoctrination) this can be achieved.
Of course, in the mean time, the usa is doing pretty well with the international market (although china is going to overtake us in 20 years or so, by most estimates). The net result of this is that our poor are really better-off than the middle-class or even rich in many other countries. However, global capitalism, fueled by domestic capitalism, produces inequity. But it's one of those things that just one nation can't change -- if the united states suddenly said 'ok! We're going to work for the benefit of the world, and not just ourselves', then it would be ripped apart within a few years. Maybe global wealth-redistribution a gradual process that comes from more education and more successful domestic models. Or maybe it's just not possible. Or maybe we're still locked in 'neolithic mode,' where it was good to be greedy -- good to store up as much fat as we could, because we didn't know when a famine would hit -- and we just have to become 'unlocked.'
One often hears arguments based on that it's 'human nature' to do this or that, or that we're 'hard-wired' for this or that behavior. I think this is largely nonsense; people have almost no natural instincts, and can use their comically oversized brains -- their only evolutionary advantage other than distance-running -- to literally adapt to anything. So, if we can wake up from our neolithic slumber and realize that warfare, competition, and hobbes's 'state of nature' are not only no longer necessary but are actually delaying and preventing our intellectual and spiritual evolution as a species, then maybe there's some hope to eliminate suffering due to poverty on a global scale.
But maybe the market can work to this end. Perhaps we're just experiencing growing pains now, and an international market can exist without greed. Can an unregulated global market provide food and shelter for everyone? Can every country find its 'niche' in the international market, as condoleeza rice, who knows a lot more about economics than I do, suggests? Or does there need to be some version of global central-planning?
Or, do we care? Does it really matter that some people are starving while others are fat? Might that be the way things are supposed to be?
Maybe there's some other option other than central-planning vs. Laissez-faire that I'm not thinking of because my brain is mired in dualism like a good logical westerner. I dunno...a dada economy? Trading chickens for tanks, then blowing smiley faces into the sides of glaciers and drinking strawberry kool-aid?
One thing to consider is the effects of global and domestic capitalism on the environment: it ain't good for it. So, we have things like the kyoto protocol, which are sort of like the beginnings of a planet-wide regulatory body. I think that's the reason the united states dislikes it so much -- it's very anti-freedom, in an economic sense; very anti free-market. The market cares not for the environment. Maybe some libertarian computer nerd has come up with a way that environmental issues will be attended to under a global free market -- I wouldn't put it past them. Anyway, if we make our own planet unhabitable, all of this discussion of feeding the poor little humans via the free market or some other method of global resource-distribution will be moot at best.
I think the 'personality disorders' are narrow-minded, reductionist and arbitrary - examples of categorizing and naming in a futile attempt to understand the one true nature of reality logically and discreetly. That said, I'm pretty sure I have a borderline personality disorder.
Borderline personality disorder is characterized by mood instability and poor self-image. People with this disorder are prone to constant mood swings and bouts of anger. Often, they will take their anger out on themselves, causing themselves injury. Suicidal threats and actions are not uncommon. They think in very black and white terms and often form intense, conflict-ridden relationships. They are quick to anger when their expectations are not met.
Doesn't that sound like me? I read that the 10 different types of personality disorders are further grouped into 3 subsets: A (odd or eccentric), B (dramatic, emotional, erratic) and C (anxious or fearful). I'm definitely of the 'dramatic, emotional, erratic' ilk, at least more so than I fall into other sets. But I have other, non-B qualities, too. Maybe it would be better to analyze one's self in terms of the ten different personality disorders, and give one's self a rating of 1-10 (1 meaning 'doesn't fit me at all', and 10 meaning 'that fits me extremely well') in each disorder. I'd probably score the lowest in paranoid, schizotypal and obsessive-compulsive categories, but I don't think I'd give myself a '1' in any category.
Certainly, though, I would score the highest under 'borderline.'
I haven't been blogging because I've been too depressed, and I decided that I really don't like people reading my thoughts.
I turn 30 in 3 days! I think this is the most unambiguously and momentously transitional age to turn. Or maybe it just seems that way because I'm about to turn 30 now. What are some other important ages? I suppose 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25, and 30 have all been landmark ages. Of course, I don't know of any beyond that, even though I hear that 35 is a big one. Now that I think of it, I'd guess 35 might be a real kicker. Maybe it's safe to assume that every increment of 5 years on the base-10 system is a big deal.
Anyway, I'm not sure what I should do. I'd like to be like all of my friends, and have a job where I use my brain, am paid well, and enjoy some measure of social status, but there has been a long string of events, caused by some unfortunate psychodynamic and organic mind/brain structures, that has made that impossible. It seems at the very least I could be living somewhere not quite as repulsive as the washington DC outer suburbs.
I have fantasies of moving to victoria, british columbia, living near the university there, and getting a job in a restaurant or something. I'd get free health care, university would be really cheap, and there'd be government safety nets there if I needed them. I like america, but I think maybe it's not for me.
I'm not willing to say 'capitalism is bad for poor people' -- the poor people in america are fat. They have cable tv and video game systems. In ireland, some of the 'celtic tiger' (the name given to the period of rapid economic growth in the 90s) is probably attributable to low taxes and laissez-faire. Of course, I'm not an economist, and I'm sure more left-leaning economists will cite other reasons for america's (and ireland's) relative wealth. But I'm not convinced that capitalism doesn't help to bolster a country's economy to the point where the poor are made to suffer less, even though they might be denied direct social support under such a system.
Anyway, I think I'd be happier in victoria, british columbia. But maybe not, since I'd have no family support network there. Here, I do have one, even though it's sort of small and flimsy. I remember reading that the primary indicator of happiness is close family ties. I'd be up a creek in victoria, unless I got married really fast. And that seems unlikely, considering that I'd be poor and fat.
I wrote down what I want in my day planner the other day, and it seemed to be appropriate, even at second and third glances: I would like 1) to be slender/fit, 2) to be well-dressed, 3) to have some money and 4) to enjoy social status of some measure.
The problem is, these desires contradict some other things that I want, such as 1) not to be told what to do and 2) not to see the human form for days at a time. Maybe I'd be less reluctant to go out in public if I looked nicer. But nice clothes on a fat person just serve to draw attention to the fat person. I would like to lose weight, but I also like to engage in surreal gluttony whenever the mood strikes me. Life is a series of trade-offs, as they say.
It's likely that 1/2 of my life is over. I'll probably die of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, or some combination of those or other obesity-related illnesses. I can't say that I'll be sorry to see death around the corner when it finally does come. And the funny thing is, we're not allowed to talk about this kind of thing. If anyone mentions death, wanting to die, or even that life might not be such a fucking terrific thing, they're considered mentally ill. Death is neutral -- there are many things worse than death.
I'm going to stop making a new blog-page every Sunday. I don't write enough these days to make pages reasonably hefty within a week. If a new page is started once a week, then pages like 0058.html end up embarrassingly sparse, because I might write entries once or twice in that week. From now on, I'll do it by word-count. When a page is over some number of words, I'll start a new one. However, my blog-pages are easy to download; since the top entry on the page is the most recent, and browsers read and render html from the top down, the most recent entry will load first, and can be read while other, previous entries load. There's no practical reason to make endless blog pages, except that I will go over quota if people download a 5-megabyte html file 50 times a day. I will continue to make new pages before any one page gets too big primarily for the sake of aesthetics. It remains to be seen what 'too big' will mean.
According to google, the word 'blog' appears 44 times in my blog, more than any one of my friends or relations. Quite shameful -- I've heard antiblog ranters talking (well, blogging, really) about the phenomenon of 'metablogging' (blogging about one's blog), and how this in itself is evidence that blogs are information-poor bandwidth-drains, and that google shouldn't index them.
My blog contains some essays about things that might be of interest or import to someone (computers, postmodernism, religion, etc), but I'm loath to call what I produce 'information.' if we're going to get picky, then really every bit of text downloaded from the web is suspect as being poorly researched, or even completely fabricated. It's a slippery slope from here to 'what is a fact, really?' and 'who decides what is fact?' and 'how is fact-labeling authority granted?.'
Here are some facts for you.
More of my muscle is turning to fat, my social skills have atrophied, I don't have any nice clothes, and I have very low self-esteem (since I'm unemployed, unattractive and haven't accomplished much). So, the result, at social events, is an enormous flabby ogre dressed in a camouflage t-shirt, sulking in the corner. It also doesn't help when a certain long-time friend puts me down all the time. I should really avoid social events, but sometimes they're necessary. I think that if I didn't hate myself so much, I might have a better time interacting with others.
TACKER: barnacle () SUBJECT: .. Renouncing US citizenship DATE: 24-Nov-04 16:40:40 HOST: sdf i replied to something like this in some other forum. Basically, I think this is nonsense -- the would-be renouncer has no idea what he's getting himself into, and has a distorted and simple-minded picture of america. I agree with you that it's a bad idea for practical reasons, but this kind of behavior among americans also sort of disgusts me on an ideological level. this person isn't going to fit in anywhere better than he fits in here -- he's an american. And yes, bush and his war-mongering lunies are americans too, but this doesn't mean that bush defines what it means to be american. Far from it, I'd say. Jefferson was an atheist, and america was more or less isolationsist for a long time. your friend isn't going to stop being an american just because he goes to italy or wherever you said he wants to go. It's fine to disagree with your government -- even hate it. This doesn't make him un-american. In fact, I'd say it makes him MORE american. this country has more history and culture than it gives itself credit for -- we've just forgotten, because we watch too much tv. Harhar. maybe this is just me, with my oppositional/defiant disorder, reacting against the bush-haters and people who are ready to abandon their country. Come on, people! This is the only sense of community or ethnicity that a lot of us have. Many americans have forgotten their ancestor's roots, and all they have is the usa. Remember that line in pulp fiction where butch says 'we're american, sweetie...our names don't mean shit'? Unfortunately, that's sort of true. 'patriotism' doesn't have to be a dirty word. 'america' doesn't have to be a dirty word. Tell your friend to re-think what he really means when he says 'america.' this doesn't mean that I'm a republican, or even libertarian. I don't wear one of those silly t-shirts with the eagle and american flag on it. I just think people are hastily jumping on the bandwagon of anti-americanism without really thinking about what they are doing. And the weird thing is, it isn't REALLY an antiamerican bandwagon -- it's a bandwagon of (sorry, roint) liberal elitist americans who talk about how they hate america and everything american. Unfortunately, this kind of nonsense has become very much an american phenomemon -- the spouters of this sort of reflexive anti-americanism are about as american as it's possible to be. it's just more mindless group behavior.