A post-modern proto-food

(Yes that is a reference to a specific book, brownie points to the person who can name it.)

So since I spent some time in Europe during my schooling years I have been interested in a complex and difficult to grasp concept of genetically modified (GM) foods (and vegetarianism with its relation to the GM foods). This post only deals with the former. The later will likely be discussed at length in the future.

Well, I will provide a couple of interesting videos about the subject before I continue. These are in general critical of GM foods (and genetic modification of our food supply) and probably rightly so, the flip side of the argument will be respected after the videos. The first video is from hulu.com. I just watched this documentary tonight, it repeats a lot that we will see in the other videos.



These next videos are from an investigative reporter in England. I have actually watched these a couple of times. They are worth watching just to see how a different culture (though not completely different) approaches the problem of food production (if not GM foods). Also the part where she goes into the chicken farm, creepy.

Adblock

and part 2:

Adblock

Finally I present a video that is a documentary about the history of corporations and the role of corporations in the current world. There is an interesting bit about Fox News, rBGH, and Monsanto in there. Definitely worth a watch as well. The playlist is here. The video is in 23 chapters. The following is the part about Fox News and rBGH.



Now all of these videos bring up a lot of interesting issues and in time I will try to come back to these issues. However I will only talk about the Food issues and specifically with regard to the GM foods. As I said these videos definitely have a slant which is worth pointing out. There is a political message in them that the actions of the corporations and the intents are in of themselves bad or poor. I think this is a slight misreading if not outright misunderstanding. If you watch the final video about the corporations in the US (and thus by extension the rest of the world) you will know that the corporation is bound, by law, to be self interested in profits for its shareholders. If it is not then the officers of the corporation are liable for the actions and can be sued by the shareholders.

Why is this important? As much as I dislike the idea of the patentability of life in any form (genes, bacteria, etc.) it is the system in which we live. In relation to crops, the companies saw a way to make money and are exploiting it. That is what they should do. Now there is a famous case in Canada (A?) about a canola farmer. The decision by the supreme court of Canada is in fact a very bad one. What happened is that some of the patented genes got onto this guy's farmland and crossbreed with his crop. So Monsanto allegedly went on his property and took samples and found this out. The supreme court ruled that it was his (the farmer who didn't even want GM foods) job to protect his crops from being cross pollinated with the patented crops. Which is a very insane judgment and completely impractical. I would direct someone with more interest to read the link or watch the entire first video. This strong arming by the corporation for unreasonable terms is not helping the corporation's cause in protecting their property. There are many examples of this happening and it huttles the real issues of government protection, corporation profit motivation, consumer's right to knowledge, and farmer's right to work.

At the heart, if the country decides that it is permissible for a corporation to own the rights to life in some way, it is important that laws are made to ensure the enforcement of zero liability in cases where the movement of the genetic material is unintended. If you are creating life there should be no expectation that you can own anything that is a derivative of that product which is substantially different. For instance if I make a butterfly and he mates with a squirrel, I should not own the flying squirrels. If this cannot be assured then there is problems (as there currently is). The question of the patentability of life is another topic for another time.

So why is this important? There is not currently proper labeling of GM foods in the United States (however there is in Europe, I mean Europe can get their act together why can't we?) and there has been a couple of times where this has caused health problems for the public. So what is the real issue in this debate? Really the european model is likely a more reasonable compromise. The government should enforce labeling of GM foods so the consumer will make intelligent decisions. However the corporations have said that customers will stay away from their product then and that will drop the price. THAT IS A GOOD THING YOU ANTI-CAPTIALIST CAPITALIST PIGS. :-) (I just had to, it was too easy.) If your product is deemed inferior then it will not get the same price as a product that is deemed superior. It would be like Microsoft saying that they should get a subsidy for all Zunes they sell so that they can get the same profit margins as Apple does on their iPod. If you produce a good product (non-GM foods) then you should be able to charge a higher price if the market will support it. It is a terrible argument to assume that it shouldn't work that way. Proper labeling will allow the customers to make wise (and healthy) decisions and if the GM foods are not what they want to eat, then well, you invested in the wrong technology and that isn't the consumer's fault. (Proceed to window two for your 'poor business decisions' bailout, you will notice the window because GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Bank of America, among others are standing by the window.)

There is a more subtle problem with GM foods which is the big issue. What happens when the new mutations get out into the wild. What will the effect be on the eco-system. Now humans have been genetically manipulating food for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. Once mankind started farming, he took the best yielding, most resistant crops and cultivated those strains. The problem with the new GM foods is that the changes are so radical that there is no proper model for what that will do. In fact in Janurary there was a report which stated that the GM Soya product changes the genetic structure of the bacteria in the human intestines. What happens if that change results in flesh-eating bacteria? It is possible. There are flesh eating bacteria in the world. Maybe some bacteria have a dormant 'flesh-eating' protein next to a helpful 'make the food taste awesome by making it taste like mountain dew' gene. The GM company accidentally pulls both sequences into the new food and now both those genes are there. Doesn't give you a good feeling does it?

This is a complicated story which needs more rational and level-headed discussions on all sides instead of Gestapo tactics by the companies and misinformation spread by the anti-GM lobby. Has GM foods increased yields? No. Could it? Maybe. Should there be better laws? Yes. Should the courts respect a citizen's rights better? Yes (and not just in this case but in a lot of areas, like the New London decision). Should the FDA do more? Yes. Should corporations test their foods better before releasing them into the wild? Yes. Should we have better labeling? Yes. The fear, and it is a very real one, is that this issue has a possibility to completely change our world in sub-par ways before the government can work through the issues needed to properly understand and most likely regulate these issues. So, as people, it is important that we are read up and knowledgeable on these issues and developments so we can make rational and helpful decisions when it comes to the foods we eat.

So watch the videos especially the last one as it is VERY good. And just remember tomorrow when you are eating your Blueberry pancake and sausage on a stick from Jimmy Dean's, you never know if you are actually eating something made of fish guts and jellyfish, (well, I guess that was a bad example...).

a step forward, without one shoe on

So to recap where we are now:

• Iowa's supreme court has legalized gay marriage by judicial activism
• Vermont's legislature has overridden a gubernatorial veto
• Washington DC has said they will recognize same-sex marriages from other states and will be debating their own law soon
• Massachusetts allows gay marriage
• More cases and laws are being debated....
  

So lots have been said about this issue in recent times (read the newspaper). I did come across one article that was fairly telling about the strategy of the gay marriage activists. I will not make a list of all the articles I have read however I do have a couple that may be more obscure that are worth reading. In the previous article the author stated that the governor of New York was planning to introduce a measure legalizing gay marriage. I didn't know that a governor could do that but apparently he can (since it was reported by multiple news sources and was previously done by Elliot Spitzer in earlier). This is not the way the federal government works which is why it is worthy of mention.

What I find most interesting about this article is the estimated increases in revenue from this law in Iowa. I find that fact trite. I don't think the judges supported the right to marry so the state could take in 54 Million dollars more which would be only be 54 million*6% = 3 million. (I love the economist so here is another article.) Nor do I think the huge income will keep Iowans from voting against gay marriage if they want to.

Now why do I say the step forward has only one shoe on? Because the decision in Iowa was not a legislative decision and was instead a judicial action. Those that know me know that I am much more of an originalist than most people (if you don't know what originalism is, then stay tuned, I have a post coming up soon about it). However in this case I am more worried about the consequences of the judicial action. The opponents of gay marriage will say 'correctly' that is was not a law (but the interpretation of one) and thus (arguably) not the will of the people. The problem with this is that the opponents of gay marriage are a group that is exceptionally against judicial activism as well (mostly). This could mobilize the opponents to this action. The only advantage in Iowa (and I would imagine this was well known to those who choose Iowa as a battleground) is that 2 consecutive sessions must pass an amendment before the amendment can be placed to a vote of the people. So there is a significant amount of time before a popular vote on the issue. This only helps the gay marriage movement. However to truly get me excited the state of Iowa should pass a law (or amendment to its constitution) to legalize gay marriage. That way there isn't any confusion in the future when new judges are installed which may interpret the old laws 'differently'.

I should say I am partial to gay marriage. I think that gay people should have the exact same legal recourse, obligations, and opportunities that we heterosexual couples do. This is from several levels. One is that our state (the United States) is a not a theocracy. I say this because the state sanctioning a marriage has no moral, or religious implications. Why does the state sanction marriage? That is a complicated topic which I have another post I am preparing for it. Partially there is a large school of thought that says stable households create better neighborhoods which lowers crime and increases the educational opportunities among other things. The state long ago decided that it was a good idea to promote that (in addition to the religious implications of the union). So to me a state sanctioned marriage is just a civil union no matter what and so why not allow two people who are dedicated to each other have this option? I mean what is the danger? That the divorce rate in the country may drop? Oh no, whatever will we do when the sanctity of marriage is destroyed and gay people can get divorced as well. We heterosexuals are hardly shining examples of the sanctity of marriage.

In my opinion all marriages should be sanctioned by religions. If you are not religious then it doesn't matter if a religion recognizes you right? The state should only sanction civil unions and in all cases where two adults want to commit the state should sanction the union for tax, legal, etc. reasons. Why? Because those are in the domain of the state (I don't remember the last time the state told me what to believe.) So, in my opinion, the state's laws and religion's dogma should reflect those realities because they allow for a more internally consistent reality, all institutions support and endorse the part of the union that is their domain and no other.

So while I think the decision goes further to getting the laws in a more consistent form I still feel uneasy about the decision because I still think there is a right way to do things, and that is not to get judges on your side and then have them overturn laws. But until everyone agrees with me I guess I will have to celebrate advances in whatever form they come in.

Diamonds are forever (because you can't sell them)

My hatred, in real life, is well known for diamonds. Diamonds are very worthwhile for certain applications. However their placement at the top of the 'precious stone pyramid' is not required or sustained by any kind of rational thought. Additionally the practice of vastly over selling the value of a diamond is detrimental to young couples at exactly the time that they need the money the most. Young couples need to be able to start their financial footing on a good foundation and not caring what stone is in a ring. Now I will buy that some people may want a Diamond over other precious gems, however the idea that Diamonds are more valuable and are worth more money is not correct.

I have come across a very telling article from 'The Atlantic'. I think posting a link to the article is likely a good enough discussion on the topic but I would like to add a couple of things to this.

I have recently read the book, 'Africa: History of the Continent', which is a whole other blog posting by itself. (The book was really really good though not without its faults.) What is interesting is the history of the exploitation of the resources of the continent, not just diamonds. I found the discussion of the specific history of south Africa in reference to the mining very telling. (What is a lot of fun is to read a huge history book like this and then have Wikipedia open at the same time. This allows for a 'Would you like to know more?' button in the book to be used and also allows you to finish the book as the author intended without major sections where you have to read stuff you could care less about.) There are very interesting articles on Wikipedia on the formation (in cratons), and diamonds as an investment. However I think this topic is well served in a lot of publications. The mining and trade of diamonds is artificially high. What is really sleazy is the original push for 'Natural Diamonds are purer than artificial diamonds' in the past and the current push for 'Imperfections make natural diamonds more desirable'. It is ridiculous to let oneself be swayed by such trite commercials. The only reason for the change in heart is that the process for creating artificial diamonds became so perfected that the artificial diamonds are better than natural diamonds.

Anyway, my biggest frustration with diamonds is that Hollywood makes everyone think that diamonds have some correlation with love. It is a ridiculous assumption. I have multiple movies in my collection where everyone goes ga-ga over a new diamond ring as a sign of engagement or marriage. It just seems like such a bad idea to spend a huge amount of money on something and leverage your future. I know a couple of people who bought extremely expensive rings (and weddings, and honeymoons, but those are a discussion for another time). Some of these people are not wealthy by any means. This they are buying something which is easily lost, doesn't store value (which would make it a real investment), and honestly is figuratively a huge neon sign staying 'Please Steal Me.' This is not an investment in anything as is indicated by the fact that you cannot sell it. Why are prices so high then? Well Hollywood makes the public believe that selling it is a bad idea and you don't love the person if you sell it. So there is no price discovery in the open market. Thus prices are artificially high. This re-enforces in the public that this is an investment because it is expensive which feeds the cycle (prices never go down, etc.). This is a very bad as it creates a sustained bubble in the price of diamonds (if it is sustained does that make it a bubble? I will think on that). Thus the asset is over priced which encourages over investment that doesn't support the price and then when you try to sell the asset you lose money. (Remind anyone of something else in the modern economic condition?)

Anyway, don't buy into the idea that diamonds are a way to store value (or to show love), because neither makes any sense, economically, realistically, or rationally.

Being on the Frontline of today

So I have been watching a lot of videos today. One of my friends has sent out a couple of Frontline video links recently. What is Frontline? (Wikipedia here.) It is a somewhat bi-weekly documentary show on PBS. I have had a soft spot for documentaries for the last couple of years because they seem to bring important current situations to the visual media. I like it, anyway.

So I have been watching a couple of them the last couple of days. I will probably incorporate a couple of these into future posts but I thought I would say a couple of things about them at this time.

• Black Money : This episode is about the use of corporation funds to bribe people in foreign countries. There are interesting comments in the movie made, like 'Everyone else does it so if we don't do it we can't compete.' Specifically the video starts with the era of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. What is interesting as it is said in the movie, that the law forbids bribing officials but it apparently doesn't say anything about accepting bribes. (For those of you who have accepted a bribe, don't forget to report it as the IRS requires that you label it as income. :-) )
• Sick Around America : This documentary revolves around the costs of health care and health insurance. I have a lot to say about this so I will not say a lot here, however it is interesting that they interview a couple from Microsoft. It is such a messed up problem (the problem of paying for health care) which leads us to the next one...
• Ten Trillion and Counting : This talks about the unfunded liabilities of the federal government. Interesting clips in the video include the office in Washington DC where they take foreign transactions in dollars to buy US treasuries. The video goes on to the explain the social security, medicare, and medicaid liabilities of the government. The most interesting interview is the one toward the end with the Obama adminstration's Peter Orzag (Director of Office of Management and Budget) defend the expansive new governmental budget. I will likely talk more about him in the future but it was interesting to listen to him try to rationalize the budget as it is. I haven't decided completely where I fall on the budget (since if it longer than war and peace and I haven't even read that yet).
• Living Old : This dovetails into the above documentary. This is about the fact that for many people we have all but eliminated the sudden deaths. This video deals with the slow and prolonged decay of many people as they age and the fact that more and more americans will face this when they get older. Do not watch this on any day where you don't want to be severely depressed. The video obviously sought out cases where people couldn't take care of themselves in old age and didn't show old people who could take care of themselves. However it was worth watching because of the figures and disucssion about this prolonged end of life. Most people die in nursing homes, etc. I haven't quite digested the content of this video yet but I strongly recommend it. Interesting quote from the video, 'People over 80 is the fastest growing segment of the population.' Wow.
  
• Young and Restless in China : This documentary followed a couple of people in China over the course of a couple of years. It is an interesting look at the culture. They looked at people who grew up on farms, in the city, work in factories, own businesses, dealt with divorce, have too many kids, lost their mom to trafficking in humans, etc. It was quite an unusual documentary for its depth (IMHO). However that maybe because a lot of information about China we get is all about how good it is that it grows and they continue to buy our continually worthless paper IOUs. There was an interesting section about this girl from a farm. Her parents wanted to set her up with a matchmaker. She lived in a room about the size of my kitchen x2 where she had a bed and tons of clothes strung about. Her door + window was like a garage door that went up. It was SO different than anything I have ever seen. What struck me most about this girl was that she said she had to drop out of school at 13 so her brother could finish school. WTF. Everyone knows I am against discrimination (forward and reverse) and I just could not believe this. I know this is their culture (or at least the culture of her parents) but still it mad me very sad. The girl was visibly upset on camera when talking about that. Why should a child be a second class citizen all because her parents had a son. I wanted to give this girl a huge hug. Man, what a ridiculous thing. I think the video was very good and is worth a watch though know it is 2 hours long.
• (Last one for now) The Medicated Child : This was not what I originally thought it was going to be about. This was about kids with bi-polar disorder. (Though if you read the websites on wikipedia about the disorder here, here, here, and here you would believe anyone you know could be diagnosed with bi-polar to a degree but I digress.) The video featured a couple of kids. Now I am not going to say some kids shouldn't be on medication because some obviously should, however this reminds me of the ADHD problems and the fact that so many people are diagnosed with it without actually having it (whatever the nebulous term of having it means). Maybe my revulsion to the medications and doctors in the video stems from the fact that I was rambunctious child and if I was a kid today I might have been put on these medications because of pressures from the schools. What would that have done to me. It is not said in the video but you can read between the lines that all of this medication is hurting a lot of people. Taking medication for the side-effects just shows your original medication leaves a lot to be desired. Anyway. This is another good video that I would suggest.

As I said when I started, these are long and good but overall will leave a sick feeling in your stomach as they deal with things that will get you mad. When you consider the consequences to society and yourself you will feel like throwing up. So use with caution, but remember that it is important to not bury your head in the sand for these issues. They exist and need to be understood before we as a society can craft a thought-out and intelligent response to these challenges. These videos (and links) are a good place to start.

Pet Peeve #1: Riding on Buses with People

I have one major pet-peeve in the libertarian mindset. It revolves around travel and transportation and the way people interact with each other in that arena. In almost all other areas of life you can insulate yourself from most people and most types of people (poor, rich, grunge, kids, etc.) however when you travel by bus, train, plane, or car you have to interact and cooperate. It is like a competitive game. In my world view this whole area is the one place where government should enforce some laws (think traffic laws, no cell phones while driving laws, enraged driver laws, etc.). And that is saying something since I hate government intervention for most part. I think it is ridiculous that people can close themselves off from the rest of the world and only interact with their little bubble they create for themselves, and then in the ONE place where they have to step out of that bubble that act so ugly to other people.

So today I was getting on the bus a little earlier than I normally do, ok a lot earlier. Which means that I get on the bus with the rif-raf high-roller business people from downtown. Anyway there is one thing that annoys me more than anything on buses and it is this: People who put their bags in the seat next to them so no one sits there.

It is one of the rudest things you can do. I specifically do not do it (unless of course the bus is almost empty and there are lots of empty seats). Unfortunately in America it seems all forms of travel allow people to be as rude as possible to each other and brush it off as 'just another day'. Think of driving, how many nice people do you know who are the biggest dicks when they drive? I know a lot of people who fit that bill. Riding on the bus is no exception.

So this lady today, dressed up and obviously thinking of herself as too important, had her purse in the seat next to her. Now when I get onto the bus especially a really crowded one I just find the nearest seat. Well if someone has a bag in the seat next to them without an obvious need (like 4 big bags, or a kid in their lap or something) then that is the seat I pick. Well I asked this lady to move her bag. About 5 seconds later she finally decided that my request was more important that twittering or whatever the heck she was doing on her phone. She gave me a very mean looking stare. Unfortunately I am actually nicer than most people give me credit for because I wanted to say, "You aren't as fucking important as you think you are and your overpriced purse doesn't need a seat of its own. If you have a problem with that then stop riding the bus and drive your ass with all your tiaras and diamond shoes downtown yourself." Sometimes I wish there was less of a filter on my mouth because I think some people who have shit a brick had I said that.

To make matters worst there was another lady in a nearby seat who had her purse next to her and that forced this guy to have to stand up for the 15 minute ride when I saw him (he was obviously too passive to ask her to move her purse which he was WELL within his right to do). I mean it is just ridiculous for people to sit such that they are uninviting to sit next to. Additionally I think it is decidedly un-friendly to place your bags and such next to you so, since most people won't ask you to move it, no one will sit next to you. I mean come on people, be nice to your neighbors and stop expecting you are entitled to sit by yourself on the bus. As a final anecdote I once saw a girl sitting on the bus at 7:30 in the morning (the most full bus) and she was pretending she was sleeping so she could lounge on the seats. So rude, so mean.

What does it say about people that we are that anti-social, that we act like that on the bus? Why should we act that way? Why can't we act like better people around other people, especially people we do not know. Absolutely ridiculous that people act like kids, they should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, I am not saying you have to be best friends with this person, just fairly use this commodity resource that you all paid to use. So depressing the actions of some people.

The King is dead, Long Live the King

Question of the Day: What would you say to the king or queen of England if you met them?

I am traveling again soon and I was looking back at my travel to London about 3 years ago. The thoughts came back to me which I ask now. This is also very interesting to ask because our president recently traveled overseas for the first time to Britain. The Daily Show, which I watch regularly, made fun of the news networks, I know it is not that hard, for pointing out Michelle Obama's faux pas with the queen. She like put her arm around her shoulders or something. Oh, no. You better pick up your monocle from your tea.

I remember wondering what I would do if I met her while I was in London. I mean there is not a lot to think about when you traveling underground in the tube (don't forget to mind the gap). What is interesting to me is that according to English law it is punishable to do all kinds of things around or to a monarch. I remember thinking that I would not call them my Lord, that right is reserved for one man. I remember thinking I would probably turn my back when I left, because when you leave a room it is important to look where you are going so you don't walk out the wrong door or into a door (George Bushism).

I remember thinking how this conversation would go when the Monarch inevitably (in my day dream) asked me, why I wasn't respecting them. I would say, well I was respecting you in the same way I would respect any other person in the world. No more, no less. Because to me, I did not elected that Monarch (I know you don't elect them anyway). They don't represent me, I do not own a castle (yet!). I imagined I would treat them like any other person I met. If the royal coach cut me off without using a turn signal I would probably call them a bitch like I normally call people. Equal opportunity insulter I am.

So back to the faux pas from London, I say, who care if you put your arm around the hostess' shoulder? Who cares if you turn your back, or do not kiss the ring? I mean really. Mostly I feel it is a way for people to feel they are more important than other people because they know they could never actually be more important on a level playing field. If people actually are that important they usually show it through magically levitation or fireballs from their arse. Not through an antiquated system or rules which have nothing to do with whether or not you respect the other person as an equal.

Sometime I will really get going and blog about 'manners and etiquette,' trust me you don't want to miss that one. :-) So what about you, what would you say?

What I Like - Tragic Stories

I thought I would try to reboot my blog here and provide a renewed dedication to blogging on this blog. I feel this blog could provide a nice outlet for all my thoughts and wanderings and so would like to continue blogging here more often. Anyway I thought I would start again with a blog posting more about who I am. (Warning spoiler alert!!!)

I like tragic stories. Like really tragic. Why?? Well I will deconstruct that later. What do I mean by tragic stories. I like it when the protagonist (and maybe the antagonist) die. I think it is way more believable than the happily ever after that most stories trumpet. Real life is hard. In real life there are consequences that need to be atoned for and you can't get away from that. For instance, in 'V for Vendetta' the protagonist dies in the end trying to bring about the change he hoped for (now this is way different than the original material so I am only talking about the movie here). In Sunshine, the crew all dies however their payload is delivered and all of humanity is saved even though the crew isn't alive to see it.

Now I know you will say this is a very dark way to look at the world. However I see it as a very hopeful way to look at the world, why? Let's take sunshine for a minute. About halfway through the crew makes a decision that dooms them all. They go to get a second bomb. And after a course of very tough events like the oxygen garden burning they realize that they are all doomed. I like the fact that these are scientists and are logical in addition to the fact that they know what they are going to do. They knew when they got on the space ship and started traveling to the sun that this could be their last mission. Additionally they knew their mission and what is was. When faced with adversity and death they didn't waver. They never questioned it and in the end even though they knew it was the end they all proceeded to complete their mission. They died for what they wanted. They knew their purpose in life.

Why is this so important to me? I feel that for a lot of people, they shirk the responsibility of being great. Of taking the chance and providing huge benefits to those they leave behind. (I don't think all stories have to end in the death of the main character though but sacrifice is usually required.) I feel that often people say, 'I will enable others to be great,' and thus feeling like they are absolved from really succeeding in life (this is a generality remember). Sure it is easy to sit in front of the T.V. and ignore the world and slowly let the world pass us by, but I think this is a terrible thing. Maybe this is partially because I think about this that I gravitate towards movies and characters who stand up decisively for what they believe in and fight to the end for what is right. It is important to me that people stand up (I think this is partially why I am so anti-appeasing people when it comes to traffic laws which is a conversation for another time. But if you agree to drive you are bound by the laws of the road we all agree to, you aren't only bound by them if you get caught, and the ntry to get out of it, but I digress.)

I think you will find that in many things I post that it is obvious that the little things are as important as the big things and they need to be guided by an over-arching theme. There is room in this framework for differences and realizations and 180 degree turns but the point is that life isn't just a string of experiences that just happen to someone and that a person doesn't just go with the flow and just do whatever hurts them the least. In the some of the movies I really like this usually causes the death or extreme pain for the main character.

In fact, I think, being proactive is huge. Those that know me personally know I am proactive in everything (or try to be). I generally fault people who don't try and then bitch about their life, and praise people who try regardless of the outcome. It is important that people are not passive, to me at least.

In conclusion I would also say the final thing that I really like about these types of stories is that these people have a goal in mind. A thing for which they strive. They are on-screen versions of ourselves. Except they usually know they have a purpose whereas we do not in general. Why is that? It isn't for lack of purpose. It is fairly easy to find a cause you can help or a person who could use your actions. One thing I really liked about Sunshine is that all of the characters knew that the end was coming and so they charged into it head-on to finish their mission. The difference with them and people in general is that they knew their mission and when it would end. Just like us, because we are all hurtling toward the end, the question is, 'will you meet that end with a purpose?' To me, I think, that is why I like these kinds of movies where the main characters die and provide hope for others. I could name a lot of movies and books that fall into this category, 'Sunshine', 'V for Vendetta', 'Tale of Two Cities', 'Braveheart', ....

Correlation between Tolerance and Empires?

According to the book I recently read, the answer is: "Yes, with a high correlation." While the thesis was interesting I don't know how correlated it actually is. It may be more of an effect of a empire rather than a cause of an empire.

Anyway I was in the store the other day and saw this book called, 'Day of Empire' on the shelf. I have been reading a lot of rise and fall of empire books recently, especially since I read 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond. What struck me about this book and is primarily why I purchased it was the treatment of non-western empires. Honestly I am beyond tired of the shelves and shelves of western histories about the most trivial part of european history. I have look long and hard for good goods about India, Africa, and China. While this book didn't provide any kind of in depth review of those topics it did provide an overview of a couple of empires in those areas which was what I was looking for.

The content of the book revolved around the thesis that empires rise because they are tolerant or relatively tolerant and fall when they close their borders and persecute the minorities in their mist. I don't think the thesis was a stretch nor well supported. I think the book revolved around a more pop-culture approach to the subject matter. I would have preferred a more complete approach and less 'accessible' book to the average person. I think that hampered the book.

Those that have read my reviews before know I always put in my reviews a words per dollar or per page. While the word per a page wasn't great the new content to me per a page was high as I previously said. The dissection of various empires that I knew little about was helpful and illustrative. The book was written as a graduate thesis which had its premise, support, and conclusion. It was refreshing to read a well thought out book if not completely satisfying in other respects. However as I said the support left some to be desired.

Elections in the United States : Part 1

This article will focus on the selection of the candidates and pros and cons of the current system. Further articles in this series will be forthcoming as the content is finished.

We are almost 3 years advanced from when the last presidential election began for those campaigning. (Some could argue that the election cycle started with Hilary's last senate bid as she rose a significant amount of money for an almost assured senate win.) Looking back at this point should provide some clarity that we can apply to future elections. For the duration of this article I will not be discussing the validity of political parties, gerrymandering, or the quality of candidates but instead I will try to dissect the last cycle and what it says about the system. I will in the future discuss the last election cycle in regards to the candidates in the future.

What are the more important lessons from the last election in the eyes of a young voter who finally was interested in politics? Basically the take away lesson is that the political process does not raise up politicians which energize the electorate. You may think this is odd given that Obama ran in the last election and by most counts energized the young vote in a way that hasn't happened in a while? Well the problem with that is that Obama is/was a super-star and the 'in thing' has a large draw on young people. As a passive test I have asked various friends of mine to name Obama's policies during the election or to state their agreement with various policies that Obama stated he would support once in office. In the former case the results were fairly laughable (though not scientific) and in the latter a surprising amount of people stated that they did not agree with various policies (again not a scientific result).

However this is not to discuss the election of Obama nor the 'super-star' status of our current president. What I would like to point out is the primary process. Now a LOT can be written about this and has however I will focus on one thing : the turn-out during the primary and why it is important. My thesis is thus : 'The primary elections (in the early primaries and caucuses) provide an opportunity for the voter to more accurately choose a representative of their views. This however is hampered by low-turnout and in the main election the voters lose their ability to choose the better of all evils.' (With the caveat that in the last election 'I' think the choice was not between two evils but two people I didn't completely agree with.)

How does this this manifest itself? In the primaries there are two type of primaries, closed and open. In a closed primary the voter must be a member of that political party to vote. The primary process is meant to have the state political parties select their voting representatives to the party's convention. (The conventions in this day and age are mostly redundant from a selection of the candidate perspective, however historically they had a huge impact, for an interesting read : 'Team of Rivals' by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Lincoln's national convention was definitely not determined before hand.) So in one respect the primary voting serves a specific and appropriate position.

In an open primary, a voter can choose the party who's primary they will vote in. This allows for a more interesting vote from a game perspective. If you think your choice will win their party's nomination then voting in the other primary for a weaker contender would be a more impactful vote. In fact this has been known to happen. However the voter is at least given the choice to vote for the most amiable person despite party preference. However if a candidate running is completely different than the party they are running for the nomination, they could still garner a significant number of votes. This provides systemic risk for the parties running the primary. So which is the better choice? In one system you have to be a member of the party to vote for your choice and in the other the party is left to outside forces. While the party could nullify a state's representatives this would never happen. So what is the best option? How could the system be more transparent to the will of the people?

The first answer is a completely open system which implements instant-runoff voting. This would significant hurt the power of the current duopoly in the government and so is likely to not work. Why is this better? This would allow for everyone to vote for whom they want regardless of political affiliation. (I will discuss instant run-off voting in another post.) What is needed is a system where the people running for political office is open to all people and not biased against independents but also allows for political parties.

there is one state which has implemented something different for all state offices. The election is in two steps. The first step allows the voters to choose their top two candidates (a process that is not required in an instant runoff system). Then these two candidates run in the actual election regardless of their political affiliation. In fact political affliction could be anything. This would tap into the momentum of having a candidate who more accurately reflects the voter's preference but also allows for situations where a party just doesn't put forward individuals who are palatable to the voters. This current system also dissuades the majority of voters from being interested in the system once their candidate is out. (This is definitely an indictment of these voters and their lack of caring but it also shows that the system fails these people.)

The problem with the current system is the system enforces a voting procedure which only helps the political parties in power which is unhelpful and unresponsive to the voter. However in any discussion it should be stated that all systems have risks and problems no matter how much they try to remove them. I will in the future more flesh out the views that more choice is better. However we should start a discussion on how the system can be improved in the future as our future is not the lack of choice provided in the past.

I guess that posting didn't go the way I had hoped. I will try to be more on topic in the future.

A Law In Time: A (web)-step in the right direction

So I come back from my trip and look at the news feed and what do I see? (Besides Gitmo closing which I will blog about soon,) It looks like President Obama is (endorsing) stepping in the right direction to provide transparency to our legislative process. (On a personal note I am slightly upset that Obama is doing all of the things that I was going to do when I am elected president. If he keeps it up I will need to find whole new, smarter things to do. Which is a perfectly fine problem to have.)

What am I talking about? Recovery.gov. The website isn't up yet and the placeholder is in place until the bill passes. If you are interested, the bill is (in PDF form) here. If you would like a blog posting on opencongress.org you can find that here.

So this is a step in the right direction but why is it not enough for Sulum? Well I will tell you. Basically it doesn't go far enough. The bill only affects the money spent from the economic recovery plan. This needs to be implemented for all laws and bills in congress. The biggest thing this provision provides above and beyond what is available with a little muckraking (granted it is yet to be seen how this will be implemented) is the section which states, "The website shall provide materials explaining what this Act means for citizens. The materials shall be easy to understand and regularly updated." This is huge if implemented properly. Maybe they can hire some of the designers laid off in the current round of layoffs and provide a website with a nice interface, easy graphics, and logical navigation. If this is done then I am beyond thrilled.

However I have to say I am not optimistic about the ability of the government to put together a website that is easily surfed. In fact if you look at the house and senate websites you will see how hard it is to do something simple like: find out how your senator voted on a bill by name or description, or see how often your senator voted for bills that originated from a republican senator or from a western senator. These very, very basic data mining queries are absent and the entire congressional record site is absent intelligent design (IMHO). This is basically the genesis and drive for a private project of mine. To provide a more complete way for a person to keep up-to-date on the workings of government in relation to their desires, hopes, and ideologies. But I digress.

What will this website provide that is sorely lacking in the current transparency that the government provides? A key passage is : "...including information about the competitiveness of the contracting process, notification of solicitations for contracts to be awarded, and information about the process that was used for the award of contracts." This means that those contracts for millions of dollars which are usually cost-plus or the like will be able to be reviewed by all people. (I will later discuss the effect of cost-plus on economic activity and why it is a very bad idea.) This will hopefully mean there will be no more 'no bid' contracts awarded, one can hope. It is really hard to award a non-bid contract when the public has the ability to easily review those records.

Now what this section means is open to interpretation. Despite the fact that most bills are hundreds of pages long, most bills are uncomfortably vague on how to implement a significant portion of themselves. If this forces the government to allow the public to review the contract process and raise hell when the process is circumvented then this is a huge step forward. While the average citizen is likely to not read it, those interested or have a stake in the process will and will likely raise hell when the process if corrupted. I may even review some of them if they are related to areas I know a lot about like technology. computers, encryption, Internet, etc.

This bill is still in congress as of today and hopefully this provision does not get cut. President Obama promised a government that works for the people and in a democracy transparency and accountability are critical. The advent of the Internet has made it so that a lot of this information can be disseminated efficiently and the government is way behind the curve in making this happen. This provision, regardless of whether or not you agree with the economic stimulus, should be applauded by all as a worthwhile attempt to bring the government closer to the aforementioned goals.

In the mean time feel free to browse the bailout sleuth for more information about where your money (and your children's money) is going.