one may at least hope that the success of this argument
should hinge on 1.) how many grandparents love their grandchildren,
and 2.) how many of these old people actually have grandchildren,

since the kind of objective political policy formulation
summed up by “do unto others as you would have done to you”
appears to completely irrelevant to our conservative hacks.

i would prefer to suggest that the dilemma was already solved in the advent of home movies which clearly stated that one was free to enjoy such entertainment in non-commercial settings.

it seems reasonable to me that any profit i receive from sharing a commodity should return a practical proportion to the originator of said commodity.

however, if i receive no profit from sharing said commodity, i don’t see why I should be due anything less than thanks for promoting the products of said originator. if they are concerned with their own profit, then i would suggest that they focus on providing their commodity in formats that provide superior user experiences (such as large-screen technologically innovative movie theaters, high quality recordings, intelligent interactive searchable personalized databases, live (as most musical artists are forced to subsist anyways), etc.).

for instance, providers of AIDS drugs in Africa should have access to all the latest pharmaceutical advancements and only be obliged to provide originators with a sustainable proportion of whatever income, if any, that they receive from distributing such products. such large scale exposures would presumably be advantageous to the evaluation of such products and provide further avenues for innovation. meanwhile, developed markets would presumably continue to sustain the much higher mark-ups that they generally do for most products anyways.

the practicality of such a proposal hinges on 2 key issues apparent in its original statement. how do we measure profit that i receive, and what is a reasonable proportion?

i wouldn’t have even thought of the first question, but it was such a huge sticking issue during the epic hollywood writers strikes of 2007-8. the writers were fighting for a cut of the internet income of the content providers (ironically, in this context), but these producers were claiming they couldn’t actually fix that exactly. that may sound a little absurd, but I can imagine (and I really have no idea if this was their real logic) that I have a website that generates ad revenue, and I have a whole bunch of music and movies that viewers can chose from. How do I allocate royalties to which content? I suppose I would allocate it based on proportions of the content selected which I would presumably also know. So, ok, that wasn’t so hard to solve, but perhaps I still don’t understand the producers’ real argument, or perhaps it just really made no sense.

so what’s a reasonable cut? i would suggest sliding scales based on my profit, the cost of the innovation, and the time since innovation. currently governments appear to primarily legislate intellectual property rights strictly in reference to time (in the US, currently life+70 years for copyright -who is gonna make all that money now that MJ’s dead?- and 20 years for patents), and leave the cost haggling to concerned parties. while the free market MIGHT be satisfactory for commodities for which supplies are actually adjustable by producers, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES ALREADY REQUIRE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE TO SUPPRESS THEIR SUPPLIES, so it would give more freedom to markets if governments actually made clear restrained proposals regarding the amount of suppression that they would provide. such interference should be particularly restrained given the important social and practical benefits provided by intellectual advancements which can further stimulate, rather than hinder, broad-based manufacturing and job creation. this proposal suggests that legislators should attempt to define reasonable proportions of profit, which would do well to take into account time past from, as well as cost of, the original innovation.

this proposal is based on the belief that such a framework would provide a superior environment for consumers, pre-empt arguments about property rights hindering innovation, and truly promote radically beneficial social and technological innovations.

extensive experience among advocates of fanatic superstitions has already braced me for the intimations of pity and presumptions of preordained condemnation which such a confession can elicit.

however, this proclivity for condemnation and its associated predilection for war belies avowed principles of love and unity and further undermines my capacity to acknowledge any validity in said creeds.

one could ask: given that my avowed logic of openness is more consistent with their supposed religion of love than their religion is with my logic, why am I trying harder to accept their religion than they are my logic? shouldn’t I be the one damning them for being so closed-minded, while they work harder on loving us heathens?

so rationally i recognize that i should try to respect religions, but emotionally I find that I consider them insane delusions.

and that’s why i can’t allow myself to indulge my emotions in the same way most religious fanatics do.

this unfettered idealism is particularly frightening in its penchant for promoting absurdly idiotic supposedly heroic behavior as when our valiant protagonists ignore all the obvious imminent risks to maintain the righteousness of grossly outweighed agendas, plunging head-long into burning buildings to save a little girl’s goldfish, almost capsizing the over-full boat to show mercy to the villain, letting WMDs tick down so as to save their girlfriend first or even just to give her an extended passionate kiss, etc.

however, this far-fetched positivism and the desperate drive towards fantasy which motivates it are quite simple to understand and even sympathize with. thus, it is not completely out of the question for a discerning mind to kick back and simply enjoy the ride.

rather, what i find utterly exasperating and outrageously abhorrent is the widespread support for deceit in the pervasive deployment of false promises:

“You’ll be ok… We’ll be together forever… I’ll never leave you (again)… I won’t let anything happen to you… No one gets left behind…”

for all the implausible serendipity of such narratives, it is still not uncommon for such oaths to be almost immediately followed by not being ok, being separated, something very bad happening, and many people being left behind. the primary question then is why hollywood writers appear almost unanimous in the impression that that’s how heros talk.

a complementary question is whether if you were bleeding to a certain death, you would prefer to be told you’ll be alright, or would you rather get the facts straight so as to perhaps pass along a few last dignified words. personal opinions on this extremely personal topic probably vary extremely so under certain circumstances the cliche hero’s hackneyed phrase may well be warranted, but the apparent total absence of the opposite advocacy of truth, which I am partial to, leaves me rather despondent.

in fact, having reached the point where i can barely tolerate these trite anti-truisms, i am practically at the point where there’s hardly a single movie or tv show that i can conscientiously appreciate.

the postured emphasis on financial conservatism is nothing short of duplicitous when seen in the light of rampant conservative moves persecuting homosexuals and latinos.

regrettably, a long-term media narrative associates supposedly unfair demands for entitlements with minorities while Halliburten and Blackwater scandals or the absence of GE and Exxon tax payments (to the US, in 2009) fail to tarnish the myth of free markets.

the smoking gun is of course obscured by this professed financial emphasis and evasive maneuvers as severe as expelling Mark Williams for responding to the NAACP’s pleas to repudiate racism with his “We Coloreds” letter which explicitly makes the link between bail-outs, welfare, and what “Coloreds … strive for”. call me foolish for attempting to respond seriously to a satirical piece, but i can’t help but wonder how many minorities came across any TARP dollars.

in fact, tea party consistency on constitutional rights such as free speech vs. political correctness can also be seen to be quite convoluted or just selfish when considering Palin’s calls for Rahm’s resignation in the face of his “retard” comments while vehemently supporting Schlessinger’s “nigger” comments. [to echo a Daily Show commentator on Schlessinger's comments, using the N-word wasn't even as offensive as all the other stupid racist crap she said.]

(another great moment in the tea party’s supposed support of the constitution and traditional american values came when Christine O’Donnell asked “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” Uh, that would be the 1st amendment.)

on the other hand, the malaise that has seized liberals is quite easy to explain on the basis of discouraging compromises and lack of progress on health care, financial reforms, wars, illegal detainment, homosexual rights, etc.

still, it really isn’t that surprising that an event touted as evidencing the end of racism in America (i.e. the election of a black president) has in fact released a torrent of racist fury.

Those to whom this state comes naturally
should consider themselves lucky,
but for those familiar with suffering and misery,
casting self-deception as a solution is simply insufficient.

James also noted how ‘liberalism’ and ‘science’
seemed to represent a switch from the ‘morbidness’
of earlier religious interpretation.
Some 100 years later,
one could hardly deny that this positivism
has increased to the point of being almost mandatory.
It should be fair to say that social norms today
show little tolerance for expressions of discontent.
Advertising and psychology have cast unhappiness
as signs of stupidity and sickness.

It is all too common to hear oblivious tots
comment that ‘happiness is the most important thing in life’,
and one would surely be hard pressed to dare
suggest anything more insightful or original.
I’ve tried to suggest “learning” is more important,
but would I own up to the suggestion of mutual exclusivity?

In any case, with my own characteristic negativity,
I must admit to being completely terrified by this rampant optimism.
I fear a blithely superficial, selfishly unmindful future
with shoddy construction and absurdly overdone posturing:
Exactly the kind of world advertisers want us to live in.

I do fear this optimism will spell the death of mankind!

it could just be the irresistible rhythm
or celebrity’s undeniable victimization
by unfounded accusations, especially in light
of michael’s ambiguous sexuality,
or more generally,
the disenfranchised man’s desire
to escape from unwanted progeny,

but i suddenly saw another perspective:
that of michael’s own inner unloved child!
“the child is not my son”;
(just as all the fairy tales have evil step-parents!)
perhaps this stereotype is all too over-played:
how could these child stars not have recognized
some sense of appreciation from the father to which
they brought so much wealth?

but the rumor is still there,
of his brutal, evil parents;
and the interpretation plays upon it well:
doesn’t the song raise the issue
of so many unwanted children.

and didn’t michael’s life reek
of the perverse slutty frigidity
of absent daddy issues?

and won’t the unwanted child fantasize
about siring his own unwanted children?

probably because i’ve been singing karaoke too much, and also because i have a profound respect for afro-american contributions to american culture, and particularly music, i’ve been trying to consider how much the fundamental flaw of racism in american society led to a more introspective approach to social dilemmas in american culture.

given that china spent most of the 1900′s in a state of (communist) civil war, i realize i should sound ridiculous trying to claim that asians lack sufficient appreciation for general social issues. however, since most of that was mixed up with justly desperate defenses against colonial ingressions on all fronts, from the british to the japanese, it’s been more than easy for them to blame their problems on everybody else.

in fact, looking at the west these days, or even the historical manifestation of communism in general, one would be hard pressed to show that there was anything general about the social issues, nor anything more that i’m gonna get mine, and who cares if you get yours.

still, if americans, or those who want to be us, persist in thinking that our major advantage is hogging all the resources, or disregarding everyone else, then the world will be headed for a sad future. only if self satisfaction can be achieved with a equal concern for others will our cultures produce generally accessible art (the kind of art that made romans want to be greek and mongolians want to be chinese).

stand in an unassailable position

avoid solid strike empty

laozi

good living

not stupid either

ahh water pressure

arrogance demands damnation.