malthaussen
malthaussen's JournalMy thanks for the heart. From the heart. n/t
Sumptuary laws and class war.
It occurs to me that most forms of legislation being imposed on Americans these days, both Federal and State, are really instances of sumptuary legislation at bottom. Now, sumptuary laws have one real intent, to put people in their place and keep them from imitating their betters. And it seems that this is the intent of almost all the legislation we're seeing: to put people in their place (as defined by the legislators), and keep them from enjoying the liberties and indeed the decency of life enjoyed by their betters (as defined by the legislators).
It appears that nothing offends the privileged so much as when other, unworthy people enjoy comforts and a standard of living that is not at a much lower, indeed marginal, level than their own. Those who contrive to own attractive and comfortable material possessions, or indeed control of their own bodies and consciences, are uppity and insolent individuals who need to be crushed with all the force the Law possesses. Or perhaps exterminated altogether, though this does pose the problem of whom the privileged will then have to look down on.
I am coming around to the belief that this is truly all that matters to these people, and that alleged ideologies and beliefs are really no more than rationalizations for this base meanness that fills their souls with bile and decrees that they shall never be satisfied so long as one other person is happier than they are. And of course, since they are not very happy, one can see where this leads.
-- Mal
Random musings on oligarchy and class war
With the current triumph of the monied class as reflected in the election of DJT and his minions, more people are becoming aware that we are experiencing a class war, and as Warren Buffett will tell anyone who cares to listen, his side is winning. It's always been intriguing to me that class war has long been disregarded in the US as an irrelevancy, with the focus instead being on wars among races and genders, as though these were not aspects of the overriding war that concerns us all.
Mr Buffett is right, of course, and it does appear that the monied class has capped off a very long game of using their best resource -- money -- to take ownership of all branches of the Federal Government (and most State Governments), and persuade them to enact the desired agenda of their class, which is quite simple, really: remove all impediments to the acquisition of more money. Yet even with all their cash, the monied class had to perfect an alliance with the religious fanatics and racist bigots in order to achieve their ends, and one wonders how long this coalition will persist, especially as the three groups have very different, and sometimes conflicting, goals. Of course the three groups also have quite a bit of overlap. Indeed, it is quite possible to be all three: wealthy, fanatical, and bigoted.
The Federal government was founded with the hope that the three branches of government, as naturally hostile to one another, would rarely move in the same direction at once, thus impeding spur-of-the-moment populist legislation that would threaten the status quo. The idea has a rich history and mostly worked (for a given value of "worked" ) for decades, but the act of the oligarchs buying up all three branches and issuing them their marching orders has cast doubt on whether these much-loved "checks and balances" are still operative. For the present, the answer would appear to be "no," but it's early days yet, and the cracks that are still present may widen over time and pressure.
The same could be said of the cracks among the three main elements of the coalition, or within each element individually. I'd like to ruminate a bit about the possible cracks emerging among the first of these groups, the rich.
As a class, the wealthy have much the same goal, to get richer; but one would think that they would be more hostile to one another than any other element of the coalition we face now, as after all they are competitors to one another. Indeed, the three most prominent of that class have divergent goals. One wants to go to Mars, one wants to create an AI hellscape, and one apparently is interested only in making money, although he likes to play with rockets also. They are in agreement now, but how long will that last? How long until the wannabe-Alphas (by their own ignorant and false definition of "Alpha" ) remember that "there can only be one" and decide to turn on each other? And if/when they do, what happens to the coalition?
It is historically significant that groups and individuals which should, by all sense, be mutually hostile, have contrived to march in concert to cast down the world we have made and begin to socially engineer another, and I will admit it was unexpected personally. One still expects the coalition to fall apart, as history informs us such unstable structures always do. The amount of damage they will do in the mean time, however, is enormous. I note that it matters little if the arc of history bends towards justice to the people living in the here-and-now and subject to the fluctuations of that arc in their daily lives.
-- Mal
Democrats are like Steelers fans...
... I was reminded of this as the Steelers lost yet another first-round playoff game. Year after year they have a winning season and then crash and burn in the playoffs. I suppose there are many other teams like this in all sports, but in Pittsburgh, people either praise the coach to the skies (for all the winning seasons), or call for his head (for all the playoff losses). It's the epitome of "just wait 'til next year," and it reminds me of how the Democratic faithful are constantly making excuses for a leadership that never changes a thing, yet seems to expect a different result each time. And the rich owners appear oblivious to the wishes of the fans. I mean, really, how similar to politics can you get?
-- Mal
Musings on damage control.
An essay penned in 2017, and dang, here it is relevant again.
As one possessed of a rather pessimistic view of humanity, I consider most activity in support of human rights to be of the nature of damage control: interposing obstacles between the people and those who would oppress them. Recently, however, the outpouring of outrage over the US President-elect and his minions (who certainly deserve all the outrage we can hand them) has drifted towards the position that those who elected him must acknowledge and face up to their obvious bigotry and intolerance. Any suggestion that this is unlikely to occur (especially as many of these individuals consider themselves neither bigots nor intolerant) is condemned as special pleading or even support of the bigoted or intolerant positions.
The difficulty with the "damage control" position is that legislation is mutable: it may be overturned at pleasure if the zeitgeist calls for it (as witness the extreme examples of the 18th and 21st amendments to the US Constitution). Thus damage control offers no permanent cure to the ills it addresses, except insofar as the habits of man might be changed, gradually, by enforcing certain practices and prohibitions which, if one has grown up with them, may not seem so oppressive or intrusive as they might to generations who were raised under a different set of rules. One might argue, then, that true "change" can only be effected by admitting that there is a problem, and hence the failure to acknowledge that racism and oppression are present in certain actions can only perpetuate, not ameliorate, the condition. Thus attacking the evil-doer is not only desireable (to say nothing of gratifying), but necessary if real change is to happen.
This presupposes that "real change" is possible, which is why a pessimist might be skeptical of the efficacy of such an approach.
Whether these positions are irreducible is problematic: one might argue, echoing the "force of habit" thought above, that as the rising generation is accustomed to different expectations of conduct, they will gradually lose the tendency towards bigotry and oppression, and that anyway in the interim the amount of damage done to the oppressed is limited, if it cannot be eliminated. This is an argument particularly appealing to those who are not among the oppressed groups, and one might note that it ain't happened yet, as the rising generation has plenty of bigots, blockheads, and fools in its ranks, many of whom are damned noisy about it. Very true, and yet might the results of the past election, and the sentiments expressed by those of the rising generation who are not bigots, blockheads, nor fools, give one hope that perhaps the habit of two or three generations might be tending towards justice? I daresay it is a matter of how one looks at things, and it is in any event of little consolation to one who is oppressed to be told that oppression is on the way out, in the sweet by-and-by.
But the question of what can be achieved by a more vigorous approach does appear on the contrary side. Personal satisfaction, certainly (and as one who is a cynic as well as a pessimist, I believe such personal satisfaction to be no small motivator of those who rail loudly against injustice). Shaming the bigots into better conduct? History suggests that this is even less efficacious than damage control in securing the rights of oppressed groups. Or shall we argue some kind of 12-step program, the first step of which requires one to "admit you have a problem?" This last attains a position of greater relevance in times when the zeitgeist seems to threaten moving away from damage control. Having already admitted that damage control is a stopgap, those who consider it important are left vulnerable when the bandaid looks like it's falling off.
Ultimately, we do live in a world where custom and statute regulate behavior, and because this is the case, one might consider that the damage control position is the one most pertinent to the actual conditions of life, whereas the more forceful position runs the risk of seeming idealistic and impractical, absent any violent revolution, in which eventuality, questions of oppression and bigotry will take a back seat to survival anyway. Thus, the rather shopworn dictum, "We do what we can, not what we will." This is, of course, a rather unsatisfactory stance, especially to those for whom the sanctity of human rights holds a dear place in their hearts. It is, however, an approach susceptible of practical and immediate application within the strictures that govern what we might be pleased to call "normal behavior."
The "12-step" argument suffers a further deficiency: let us stipulate that the first step is achieved, and the sinful acknowledge their sin. What form do the next steps take? Why, the alteration of custom and statute to eliminate or ameliorate bigotry and oppression within institutions and society, which is exactly the objective which those who argue for damage control have taken from the start. The only difference seems to be that, on the one hand, the reformers demand an acknowledgement of guilt, whereas on the other, the reformers care not about guilt (or responsibility, if you please), and want only for change to be effected. Thus the latter are concerned with a practical matter, whereas the former are concerned with a moral one; and the latter, as has been said, suffer the impediment that any practical solution, when not undergirt with moral reformation, is liable to be eroded or overturned altogether, which is the situation in which many fear we may be finding ourselves in the very immediate future.
I don't presume to be able to reconcile these positions, which as has already been stipulated, may indeed be irreducible. But I would like to convey one idea, and that is that refusal to demand that the guilty own their guilt is not, necessarily, an endorsement of the actions or an excuse for them. It may simply reflect the attitude that assigning guilt is an exercise best left to some power with greater wisdom and authority than one's poor self, and a lowering of one's sights to works of the hands which may hold out some realistic hope of accomplishment.
-- Mal
Santa's on a fire truck with the local vols in the church parking lot...
... handing out candy to the children. I'm surprised he has the time.
But then, as an extra-dimensional being, he can be multiple places at once.
-- Mal
The death of text.
Just a little gripe from a grumpy old man. It is saddening to me that text is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. How often I have clicked on a post thinking "that sounds interesting," only to be greeted by a video of some talking head instead of some meaty text I can read and interpret at my leisure. Or some tweet with a one-liner and no context whatsoever.
I prefer to read arguments, not listen to someone present them verbally on a camera. Obviously I'm a dinosaur. And there's probably a good video or two discussing how the move towards video argumentation has changed the way we think as a species.
-- Mal
Belatedly watching "Star Trek Continues," and I am impressed.
Script, production values, direction -- all very good. It has the feel of TOS (and James Doohan's son plays Scotty).
But it is very hard to adjust to the weak tenor voices of the actors playing Kirk and Spock, compared to the baritones of the original actors. That's a minor flaw, though, otherwise this is good stuff, if you liked TOS.
-- Mal
My computer baseball league LA team now has the following top 5 batting order:
Mookie Betts, SS; Shohei Ohtani, RF, Mike Trout, CF, Matt Holliday, LF, and Pedro Guerrero, 1B.
I'd match those guys against Murderer's Row any day.
-- Mal
What's your favorite fast food?
Those of us who aren't food snobs might confess to occasionally grabbing a quick meal at one of the many fast-food franchises that dot the landscape. So what's your favorite? I'll go with the Baconator from Wendy's, which is a little more expensive than other burgers, but at least not as expensive as Five Guys. And, of course, it has bacon.
-- Mal
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Sep 24, 2011, 09:36 AMNumber of posts: 17,883