Incidental Musings of a Neo-Bohemian Geek

So Who Are the 1% Anyway?

2011-10-22T11:08:00.000-07:00

So after spending some time in the trenches with Occupy Fort Wayne this week in what little spare time I've had, I've seen a lot of angry people. Everyone is mad as hell at the top 1% of America's rich and elite who hold about half our nation's total wealth. But just who are these 1%?

Our friends over at new deal 2.0 have provided a wonderful graph breaking down the top 1% of American "taxpayers" over the past 30 years (the chart shows figures from 1979 to 2005, and one can imagine that with the complete lack of disparity between the figures over those years, that the last 6 years has not changed these figures much). The chart can be found here. A bit of analysis of these data should easily reveal some very interesting facts. First, among the top 1% there are 4 very specific industries who hold 70% among the top 1% richest in this nation. People talk about wanting to be Oprah rich, but Oprah, among the rest of the media, sports, arts, and entertainment stars only make up a measly 1.5-2% of the top 1% of the wealthy. Who you really want to be are big time corproate laywers (about 10%), financial industry leaders (about 15%), a big time player in the medical industrial complex / Pharma (15%), or a CEO or other top-level shareholder of a successful, multinational corproation (30%).

While the values indicate various fields, I have narrowed these fields down to very specific types of players in these fields, because it should be noted that the CEO of Lincoln Life, or your family doctor, for the Pharma rep that comes to your hospital with all the pizzas trying to woo your doctor into using his new drug...these people are not part of the 1%. They are instead people who have been disillusioned to think they have something in common with the top 1%, when in reality, they are part of the ever-shrinking Middle Class. There is also a reason why there is so much Marxist overtones to the Occupy movement. It isn't because all the protesters are all socialists or Communists. It's because the very economic tide of "us" vs. "them" that Marx made evident in his writings, and the predictions about the fate of capitalism, all seem to be evidence in this recession.

When one looks at Marxism, democracy, and libertarianism/anarchy, there is actually very little difference in the basic philosophy until the State gets involved. Marxists say "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This effectively says that resources should be shared for the good of society, and everyone chips in so that everyone can work together for a common good. Democracy says "each one person gets one vote." This also effectively says everyone that chips in gets a say in how the resources are used...which generally means everyone gets a piece of the pie. Libertarianism/anarchy basically says, "each individual gets to do what they want, provided it doesn't infringe on someone else's basic needs." Again, this effectively leads to everyone leaving well-enough alone, but ultimately everyone being provided for, because your wealth cannot come at the cost of another's, otherwise government will naturally arise to set that straight.

Ultimately, there is little difference between the three systems, and so it is very easy to label someone participating in democracy as "anarchist" or "socialist," however. And yet, these are the same methods our founding fathers (and no, Ms. Bachman, that doesn't include John Quincy Adams) used when they organized against British rule in the mid-to-late 18th century. It is only natural, that at a time of great economic recession, and the apparent disparity between rich and poor growing to ever-more-noticible numbers that such a movement would arise. And being that we are Americans, it would make no less sense that the movement would be based on the Enlightenment era ideals of people like Locke and Tocqueville, which influenced the founders of our great nation to rise up and protest (peaceably at first) their oppressors. It would also make sense to use the same tactics that were used by Dr. Martin Luther King and other great Black Civil Rights movement leaders to organize people into peaceful protests against their oppressors.

So now, the call has been sounded. The "vague" movement of Occupy Wall Street and all its splinter cells in each city across the United States are shouting in anger against a single, common oppressor, the top 1% of American "taxpayers." I put "taxpayers" in quotes, because many among this tier of the wealthy use tax loophole after tax loophole to get out of paying a large swath of the taxes they are required to pay, unlike the Middle Class servitors that prop them up. It is these same Middle Class servitors, the U.S. nationalists, who fervently support movements like the Tea Party. These drones were the same people in the streets massing with guns in holster and touting American liberty a few short years ago. Yet now they oppose Occupy because it lashes out at the elite aristocracy who was kind enough to toss them some table scraps. They are the house slave, not the field slave, and being "lead by the feather," they now cannot see why they should rise up in union with those "lead by the whip" against their masters. They don't see why they are not free. Yet the field slaves have all taken to the streets, and their voices trying to be drowned out by calls from the 1%'s mouthpieces that "they don't know what they are protesting." I assure you, if you don't know why people are protesting, then you have been asleep for the last 50 years.

The Occupation of America

2011-10-11T10:50:00.000-07:00

So I think it's funny that the Occupy movement is called such. It is a bit of irony. In essence, the people of the United States (not just liberals, not just libertarians, but truly people from all different walks of life) are taking to the streets in a sort of occupation of America. The interesting thing here, is that many believe that the American government is occupied: occupied by corporate "persons" who are holding it hostage with their Super PACs and lobbies. The wealthiest 1% of the population, namely large corporations and their CEOs, bankers, and the like, have found every loophole in the works to make the law work for their best interests. Where it hasn't, they have pressured politicians to make the laws looser.

And what happened when the bubble burst? They got their friends in Washington to give them more of our money, in order to protect American corporate interests and stimulate economic recovery by producing jobs. Where are the jobs? Where is the economic recovery? Why is that CEO buying a new yacht? These are the questions this occupation movement seeks to answer.

Many say the movement is not organized. Well to a degree it isn't, intentionally so. If there were a single common statement of political interest or too narrow a focus, it would lose many of its supporters. The lack of a narrow focus is exactly the purpose of the movement: to bring the masses together under those few commonalities that we share, i.e. being oppressed by the wealthiest 1% of this nation. The people have had enough, and they are taking their stand!

And I will be standing with them this week. I will attempt to write what I can when I can, as I join the Occupation in Fort Wayne. As someone who is back in school after 8 years and working on producing a set of skills that will help me get a career, after 8 years of working paycheck to paycheck and watching my hours and pay get cut while what was demanded of me continued to increase, I have a vested interest in the success of this movement. If it fails, I may not have a career to turn to when I graduate. If it fails, I may not have a voice to speak up and demand one. Therefore I will stand and speak now. Whether it is in little Fort Wayne, Indiana, or on the streets of LA and NYC, your voice must be heard. The corporations are everywhere, not just on Wall St, and they are stealing your tax money and getting wealthier off it. Stand up and tell them that you've had ENOUGH!

Conversational Monopoly: Do Not Pass GO, Do Not Collect $200!

2011-08-09T00:04:00.000-07:00

I fail to see why people feel the need to post things like "I don't understand. Why is there a need for this sort of thing?" (for instance: a plugin that helps give better individual control over browser security) and then when it is explained why certain users would be interested in something that allowed them more control over said thing (for instance, their browser security), they "fail to see" how it should apply to them in a condescending manner as if they are the only person it could possibly benefit on the planet, and is therefore stupid.

If it doesn't apply to you, move on, don't use it. It's that simple. If someone shares something with a larger community and you don't think it's worthwhile, but you'd like to learn more about it, engage them. If all you want to do is profess to the world that you'll never use it and therefore you think it's a dumb...whatever-it-is...then please just move on and don't open your mouth.

I see this sort of logic all the time, not just on the web, just in general, out there in the world. It goes sort of like this:

-----------------------------------------------

Cool New App Guy:
Hey look large community of diverse tech-using habits, I just found a cool new app that does something neat! *posts link*

Naysayer:
I don't understand why anyone would need this. *cites examples of why he himself doesn't think he needs it by incorrectly pointing out things of no relevance to the app*

Cool New App Guy:
Well, that isn't really what the app does. This is what it does and why some people might find it interesting. *cites stuff that explains how stuff works*

Naysayer:
I don't care about this one example that was used, and since that is related to why someone might use the app, I'm going to talk about how I would never do something with my tech-usage habits that might lead me to have any sort of need to use this app, rather than acknowledge someone else might, thereby completely monopolizing the conversation and derailing it into what I would rather talk about!

-----------------------------------------------

I see it happen everywhere, down to almost an algorithm-like science similar to the conversation above, where you can just fill in a few sections with details, and the entire conversation repeats verbatim. This happens in large coffee-shop conversations, too, and about all sorts of things other than just apps. Hell, I even do it now and then! It just really makes me wonder if it's programmed somewhere into the human condition to relate to every tidbit of information received as if it were given on a personal level, and thereby necessary for a feedback response of whether or not one can personally benefit from this information, even if someone just wants to share something neat as a conversational topic. Hmmmm...

Unfortunately, the app that started this whole thing won't work for me, it's crashing my Firefox when installing it. Probably a conflict with another extension, so I can't tell you how great it is, all I can tell you is how to tell me how stupid it is without knowing a damn thing about it...and I am done doing that now, so goodnight.

I'm SUPER, Thanks for Asking!

2011-08-04T02:19:00.001-07:00

It seems like you can almost always recognize a full-blown "look what government is doing to increase their power!" conspiracy theory based on 1) the graphics and fonts used by the website, and 2) the mention of the name Ron Paul (you know, that guy who claims to be "libertarian" but who supports invasive government into our lives, provided it supports his conservative agenda and takes place at the state level rather than federal). I don't hear his pretty libertarian colleague across the aisle, Rep. Dennis Kucinnich (D), going off his wagon about this "unconstitutional" deal (though he does apparently think it's "insane" to do so, he has yet to my knowledge referred to it as "unconstitutional"). So it makes me wonder what he thinks about the constitutionality of all this, being that he has a pocket Constitution on him at all times, maybe someone should ask him the hard questions instead of fishing for Paul's crazy Tea Party rhetoric. Kucinnich, after all, has been a champion in Congress for defending the Constitution of the United States for nearly as long as Paul has claimed to!

Now, don't get me wrong here! I don't like this super committee idea any more than I liked any other solution that came out of Congress, and I agree with Kucinnich that this deal is INSANE! The thing is, the article referenced above is all talk and no fact. First, the Treasurey wasn't going to run out of money anytime soon, it was reassured many times over. What would have went bankrupt would have been stuff that the treasury borrows against to loan the government money to fund programs..like the social security trust fund. Second, this sort of committee is not exactly unconstitutional. The committee aren't "unelected" they will be made up of our elected officials.

For instance, the Joint Committee on Taxation which was established in the 1920s is made up of appointed members of the House and the Senate. It presents findings and recommendations to the House and Senate, and those recommendations are voted on. Is that committee unconstitutional? The House and the Senate are still going to be voting on any legislation that comes out of this committee, that isn't unconstitutional. The House and Senate have decided their rules of order for these recommendations as being an up or down vote with no debate. Since each house of the Congress has determined these to be the rules under which they shall operate for votes on these recommendations, there is not much that can be said, the consitution gives each house the authority to make their own rules on how they shall conduct business. The consitutional right to "debate" or to "fillabuster" that Ron Paul and others claim is being denied to Congressmen and Senators, is a fallacy. Those rights are not gauranteed by the Consitution, they are part of the rules of each house which determine how business is conducted...their "house bylaws" so to speak.

The ONLY part of this law that rides on the edge of unconstitutionality is the "less than 1.5 trillion" clause that then authorizes and forces the hand of the committee without vote of either house to start cutting programs. That, and the extension of this bill onto future Congresses is a bit offputting, however, bills can be overturned by future Congresses, this one is no different.

Why I'm not a Capitalist

2011-07-30T23:42:00.000-07:00

or how Keynesians and Hayekians continue to misdirect the nation's economy.

I am not an economist, however I like to think I know a bit more than the average Joe (the Plumber) or even politician, simply because I try to study it and stay informed, as I find it both interesting. I've taken up a renewed interest the last several years and studied with much more fervor in trying to understand all the underlying issues with our current world-wide economic-equivalent of Hurricane Katrina. In the end, I have decided, that the real reason everything's gone to hell is because both Keynes and Hayek may have been flawed in their theories...but most importantly, because no one has bothered to expand on them or create new ones since.

So I have a new theory for you, economics world. It's called the theory of fear, and it goes like this:

Mankind does not respond to fear in predictable ways like animals. One day they may have a mass panic and pull all their money from the banks and stock market. Another day they may just sit back and ignore the fact anything bad is happening. A 10 cent gas price increase in 2000 panicked people to the pumps, scrambling to guzzle as much as they could in the wake of a crisis...those prices rose a full dollar in some placed during the course of that day, but ultimately, a mere 10 cents is what sent the nation into a tizzy, and in the end, the prices dropped the next day, not steadily rising much more than 50 cents for a full 2 years, until turmoil in the Middle East and tensions in Venezuela drove prices at the pump up to around $5, to which no one flinched. If I told people that for certain, tomorrow, gas prices would increase 10 cents, you'd see 5 of my hundred friends hit the pump, the rest presuming it would stop at 10 cents, and there would be no panic.

You see, what economists generally fail to look at is context. Consumers attitudes are hard to predict, unless you look at the context. If you see that they are already in panic about something else, then indeed, a price hike somewhere to a commodity that is a basic need for most of them, is going to further heighten that panic and cause more panic. Fear begets more fear. Whether that fear makes someone angry and take to the streets, or lock themselves up in their basement with a gun, depends on context...and it is that ignored context that has created a lot of missed forecasting by economists over the years, and a lot of drunk-with-fear politicians to create laws to stave off panic when there would have been none to begin with.

Today, I'm going to look at context. The nation's dollar is collapsing in value, and has been steadily for 50 years. The nation's public debt has skyrocketed in the last 3.5 years, and Washington can't seem to decide if budget cuts to important social programs or tax hikes to potential job-creators is the answer. Many feel the answer is to simply leave it alone and let the economy fix itself.

I have the solution, my fellow Americans: compromise, and spend the next 15 years contextually cutting or restructuring programs that are wasteful, while slowly removing tax breaks for the wealthy and for large corporations. If they take their business overseas, stop giving them incentives to continue doing so, rather than relying on public works projects to counter the rapid downsizing of US-based companies who are outsourcing every job they can to countries with unfair labor laws in order to make even more money while paying less taxes. Also, you can start paying attention to historical context and consumer habits...we will spend ourselves into debt before we get so afraid that we stop spending anything...people don't stop spending during economic crisis because they fear they should save instead...rather they stop spending because they run out of money and credit to spend! Find ways to encourage the populace to stay away from going into debt (much like we wish the government would) and we'll have more money to consistently spend and pay into taxes.

These may seem like pretty simplistic ideas, because they are. But in all reality, sometimes it is the simple answers that are most effective. Unfortunately, the words of the simple are too often perceived the words of the simpleton, and ignored. The advice falls on deaf ears, and nations collapse under the weight of their own hypocrisy.

The Obama coin: Heads I win, Tails you lose.

2011-07-16T00:05:00.000-07:00

In the same week that I finally gain respect back for the President in at least trying to stand up to the House GOP leadership that wants to call his bluff on the debt ceiling raise, bringing nothing to the table to compromise after being handed 1.7 trillion dollars in budget cuts to programs that will surely hurt the Democratic base's standing with their constituency, I then instantly lose it in the way his administration is handling the ninth circuit DADT ruling.

Obama is obviously trying to have his cake and eat it too here. He wants to be able to tell the left "we're repealing" and tell the right "we acknowledge the military's concerns". The Joint Chiefs want an indefinite amount of time to repeal, because they are old white men who are homophobic and don't understand that this policy is not going to destroy the military. By my logic, it would take no more than 60 days for them to be able to revise policies and procedures to remedy their concerns...i.e. the amount of time between certification and enforcement of the new policies. Yet Obama wants to kowtow to the right while giving promises to the left. I can give you an exact date on when Obama would have DADT repeal go into effect...December 18, 2012 (the day after the electors meet to officially elect the president).

I'm sorry Mr. President, you need to grab this bull by the horns and ride it into the primaries whether you like it or not. Gays and allies are not stupid, and we recognize political dramas for what they are. You're worried about the swing voters and the support of your millitary leaders. That's admirable, but in all due respect, your military leaders are forced to abide by your authority as Commander in Chief, so you should worry more about your constituents voting for some crazy Tea Bagger opposition simply because you pissed them off!

Latching onto Richard Dawkins' Coat-tails for Fame and Glory

2011-07-08T19:03:00.000-07:00

or
How to Explode the Internets in 2 Easy Steps.

Step 1: Write a blog post that deals with inappropriate ways to hit on a lady
Step 2: Wait for Richard Dawkins to respond

OK, well obviously there are probably more steps involved, and I'm sure none of them were intentional. But to watch the debate brewing among the skeptical community, one would think that Skeptics Guide to the Universe (SGU) podcaster Rebecca Watson, raised some sort of war banner against men. She posted a video discussing (rather briefly, maybe 30 seconds of an 8 minute video), among many other things, a man who followed her into the elevator, alone, and proceeded to invite her back to his hotel room for coffee and a talk...alone...a woman in a foreign country at 4am alone in an elevator he's asking this to after following her out from the bar to her hotel. While his manner was polite, she was obviously creeped out, and felt he had missed the memo -- being she had spent the day speaking about misogyny in the skeptical community, and the perils of sexualizing women. She continued to simply warn guys not to do that, because it scares women and has the opposite effect they are going for.

In another comment she states:

But regardless, the point I was making was that people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger. This person failed to recognize that even though I had been speaking about little else all day long.

Somehow this created a buzz across the internet for the last month...enough buzz that eventually, the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, decided to make a snide comment referencing the video and all the overreaction...did I mention it was snide? It's Richard Dawkins, he's never much been known for his tact.

Heads are now rolling across the internet, as flame wars escalate, books and podcasts are being boycotted, and all because of a poor nerd who may or may not have been a misogynist. Is any of this worth it? I think the problems are thus:

1) We need to acknowledge that gender inequality is still a very prevalent problem in our Free World, despite ideas to the contrary, and no collective group is somehow safe from it, much like racial inequality, sexual-identity inequality, and many other forms of social inequality.

2) We also need to acknowledge that simply calling ourselves feminists and raising the banner for oppressed women on all fronts is a bit absurd. It's like being a Blackist or a Jewist. It's a radical activism group that many people don't want to associate with, even if they agree with the basic tenets (in this case, gender equality).

3) People pay far too much attention to what major or minor celebrities in any given collective say, and take things far too personally when they say them.

And now, to finish making sure my blog gets even more hits than simply mentioning Dawkins, I will close with a few more buzzwords: rape incest nazi homophobia communist elitist racist bigot ... and of course, Star Wars.

One nation, under XXX, and in XXX we trust...

2011-07-07T23:27:00.000-07:00

I am not a Christian.

There, now that that's been said. What the heck is up with all the extremism in this country? If it isn't religious extremism, it's environmental extremism, nationalist extremism, political extremism...and it all ends up in the same place: in the media. The media today is nothing more than a reflection of what I see every day on the internet...a nation of extremists, all yelling back and forth at each other, all hating this country and the goverment for one reason or another.

Today it's the Goshen College debacle. They played they started playing the national anthem at sporting events, I guess, and now a bunch of religious zealots are up in arms about it, and so the school barred it from being played again. A friend of mine posted a comment on one of his friend's Facebook pages, and so I got to spend 30 minutes looking through a myriad of inane dribble attacking him for defending the religious zealots' First Amendment Right to protest, and the school's right not to play it. Similarly, earlier today I was reading where a law was being considered in San Francisco that would ban circumcising babies, regardless of religious beliefs. Obviously Orthodox and many conservative Jews are up in arms about it, screaming First Amendment.

So what exactly DOES the First Amendment say anyway? Well, let's see...it says people have the right to not be forced into a goverment-established State religion. It also says that religious institutions cannot be endorsed by the government. In return, tax laws have made religious institutions exempt from taxes to keep their nose out of the goverment's business, as corporate entities who pay taxes, are entitled to engage in political discourse as taxpayers. This hasn't seemed to stop religious institutions from doing that, however, particularly in recent years.

So who's right? Well, nothing says a religious college has to engage in patriotic acts before sporting events. They could pray instead. And that's probably what GC did before they decided to play the anthem for the first time, and probably what they'll do again. Their alumni, faculty, staff, and students were up in arms because they feel the anthem violates their religious beliefs. If that's the case, they must hate the Olympics...all those different anthems all the time from all those countries all violating their beliefs. But regardless, nothing says they HAVE to play it, they don't HAVE to be patriotic, they are a private school. And nothing can FORCE them to play the anthem in order to receive government aid (which they probably don't get much of anyway, because they are a PRIVATE University).

And what about the Jews? Well, not all Jews are against the law. Many Jews disagree with circumcision as a barbaric and antiquated practice. But, regardless of what the Jews think, the law provides "protection" to ALL children equally from the "abusive" practice of circumcision (read in "genital mutilation"), whether they are born into a family that is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, secular, or otherwise. It's illegal to ritually sacrifice humans, so if my religion says I need to sacrifice my neighbors, I assure you I would still be arrested for doing it. There are only so many protections that can be given for "my religion says I can..." and I'm not sure what I think about circumcision. But I know one thing is for sure...if a parent can't decide whether or not they should circumcise their child, and aren't capable of dealing with the consequences of it, then shouldn't we ban practices like abortion, too? Abortion is quite obviously "child abuse" if you believe that a fetus is an unborn child.

In my honest opinion, I think the solution to all this extremism is simple: If you are a parent, take responsibility for YOUR own actions, and not any other parents' actions (though feel free to offer help, provided you respect that other family's views and wishes when you do so!). If you are religious, respect others' religious views...particularly those who have none. And vice versa. And if you love the country, stop being a nationalist. A real patriot stands up and does something, they don't just wave flags around telling everyone that thinks "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, or who thinks that a national anthem shouldn't be played at a sporting event at a private religious school should be deported to another country because they are "un-American."

Oh, and do me one more favor...screw your head on straight, and stop letting the politicians spin you into believing what they want you to believe. They cater to the least common denominators of the public, so if you are spitting out their rhetoric as your own views, then you're the least common denominator. Democratic rhetoric appeals to people who loves trees, puppies, and grandma. Republicans like America, hate terrorists, and protect your family values. If either of these statements were true, I'm not sure why there's any reason for shouting across the aisles! Everyone loves trees, puppies, grandma, America, and want to protect our family values from terrorists, don't we? Isn't that just what we like if we're Americans? But politicians don't care about any of those things. They care about money, who gets the money, who gave them money, how to get more money, how to keep the money, and how to make sure the money is worth stuff. It's all about stuff really. Politicians want stuff. We have stuff. They take our stuff by telling us they want to protect puppies from the terrorists. STOP BUYING INTO IT ALL! Vote for people who sound like they actually THINK about things, have SOLID PLANS that you can believe in, and AREN'T JUST SPINNING YOU! Oh, and that's another thing...this requires that you actually get off your butts and vote.

And there you have it. Another rant by Curt Wulf. Until next time...stop being stupid, America!

Changing it up again.

2011-07-07T23:21:00.000-07:00

Yup, well, this blog seems to work best if I just rant. Whenever I try to be more structured, it ends up disastrous. So I'm just going to start ranting here. It seems like at least once a week or two I find myself enough on Facebook or elsewhere, plagued with insomnia, wanting to rant about something. So I'm going to start ranting again. Some people will read them, most won't, and I don't care (love me!).

So welcome to my rants, my absurd stories, and my life as an insomniac. Feel free to comment, post replies on your own blogs or on youtube, and otherwise let me know what you think.

I might occassionally post non-rant stuff, too, like chess or poems or anything really. I am not limiting myself at all this time. Enjoy the ride!