Fwd: Lets all Laugh at Greyhound

They give a bad name to real dogs everywhere. All canines. Caniforms, and, well, mammals, really. they should call themselves Granite Bus Lines for how aware they are of themselves.

Greyhound is so stupid, they don't realize 7-11 won't sell their tickets. The clerk in the store tells me they haven't for over a year.

Greyhound is so disorganized you cannot buy tickets online; they can't figure it out.

I have a hard time thinking that they actually want any customers. Their phone system has two options: neither one is specifically for buying tickets. One is for customer service, and just asks you to call a different number. An easy page to find on their website is media relations, like they expect news outlets to come show the world some sort of heinous thing that has happened there.

The really frustrating thing is that it shouldn't be this hard. There are a million air-ticket finding websites that do it third party, and Greyhound can't get it done internally? If there were any accountability, every executive in the company would have lost their job due to incompetence. I can't imagine their offices work any more effectively than the parody show starring Steve Carell of that name. Or the infamous comic by Scott Adams.

It really is laughable. And would be a great joke if I weren't trying to get places without having my own vehicle. I don't want one.

I call for the voluntary resignation of their top brass. But if they had any scruples, they would have done so already.

Higher Education

 Is it so hard to believe that there is a place in the world for government? Even in the most perfect of societies, small societies and large, there has been a government of some sort. Still, there are those against the basic idea.

What role government takes in the lives of people is a difficult issue to cover. Whether it is big, or small, is not really the point: that's too simple. There can be big, but good, governments (thought that might be hard to come by), and big clunky, corrupt governments. There can be small and effective governments (though that might be equally hard to come by), or small and ineffective governments. The devil is in the details. The real question is: are we being smart. If it is arranged well, great!

If it is not arranged well... then... well. We have a problem.

How does the current US government compare tho this idel? Is it even capable of making good decisions. One thing I agree with Stephan Molyneaux, if government isn't good, then it can't do right.

There are many problems with our government. As a million people will point out. One I find particularly damaging is that we have a handful of people who are not professionals in a discipline making decisions for that discipline as if they are experts. Just taking education and construction as examples:

Our government, our people, decided it was a great idea to hold teachers accountable. As such a banal statement, it is hard to argue with that. Sure. Hold teachers accountable. We don't want awful teachers continuing to be awful teachers into the future. What will that do to the thousand or two students who suffer under through class? But as soon as we start implementing this, we run into problems. Who, precisely, are we holding teachers accountable to? Government boards? The least trusted organization in our country? That sounds like a flaw; who's watching the watchmen? Who's holding government accountable? Right now, that answer is everyone. Otherwise known as no one. How do we hold teachers accountable? Well... we have a few thousand teachers, in a district. And a few thousand officials. No one knows 'em all.... We'll design a numerical metric!

It is amazing to me how much faith anyone can have in numerical metrics. I like math, but there are certain limitations to math. Perhaps simply because there are limits to the human imagination. How would anyone design a metrical system which would take into account every necessary variable? Then, who is going to have the patience to input all of that information? Who's going to have the intelligence to analyze that mound of data? Our school systems are swimming in data that no one has time to compute. Can anyone tell me the point of that?

Now, President Obama has a plan to implement a similarly failed plan on higher education. I'm just a little peon, and my hypothesis is echoed by many others more eloquent, but this seems a poor idea.

On the surface, it will prove the tea party right. At least to themselves. It will bolster the enemies of Obama and the Democrats: they are for big and intrusive government. It will lessen faith of the people in their government, and it will create more enemies. The only good thing about that I can think of is, perhaps, our government will finally go through a metamorphosis and no one will vote for a democrat or a republican in the next election.

Our higher educational system is highly flawed. It is increasingly necessary, and increasingly difficult to attend. It is hard to figure out, there are many poor colleges (and fake colleges) competing to get your money, but they are not competing to educate you. There's a problem with money for you. School today is prohibitively expensive and acts, often, as an efficient slave maker: go to school, accumulate debt, that requires you to get a job - any job - no matter how well it fits you, no matter if it is your interest or skills, no matter what it pays. Debt must be paid off. And now, we do not have freedom. Shucks. Modern slavery.

But what is the source of this problem? How can we fix it? Create a heavy and impossible to administer governmental rating system so that the colleges no have to compete in another artificial landscape? Just work to get high on the rating system, not service their students? If a college is rated highly because graduates come out and get high paying jobs, then it neglects the forward-minded people who realize the limitations of money and do not make that their goal in life. People doing real, and important, low-or-un-paid work. Any people who get jobs in poor-paying fields by choice. It will reward schools who train lawers. Financiers. Lobbyists, medical doctors, oil barons, politicians, old money students who could've gotten that job anyway, and other destructive, greedy, or problematic professions. Maybe the occasional athlete or big ticket entertainers. Not artists, scientists, teachers and veterinarians, activists, tradesmen... or farmers, the most important people in our society. Supplying the one thing we really cannot go without. Sure, we could create a loophole for them, but then that loophole can be exploited. It happens all of the time.

We have a systematic problem. Fixing symptoms isn't going to solve the problem. Putting a bandage on a hemorrhage is a waste of time. Drinking to forget your problems doesn't help. We need to actually fix the problem.

Just like the K-12 system, there is no one who could administer this system. The only people qualified should be disqualified due to bias.

We need to go the other way. In K-12 education, we can give power back to teachers and to local authorities such as principals and superintendents who have been involved in education for a long, long time. Personally understand its ins and outs, and know how to spot a good teacher and a bad teacher. In higher ed, we can do the same thing: give control back to the people who are actually doing the work: the professors. It is hard to take money out of the hands of those who write the checks, but cut administer pay.

As PHD Comics pointed out: School Presidents' salary is closely tied with the price of Higher education: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1291

Ah hell....

They are like those "assorted" cookies that differ from one another only in shape and shade, whereby their shrewd makers ensnare the salivating consumer in a mad Pavlovian world where, at no extra cost, variations in simple visual values influence and gradually replace flavor, which thus goes the way of talent and truth.
-- Vladimir Nabokov, "Lance," The New Yorker, February 2, 1952

Re: A story. Whaddaya think? It's based on true events.

Brrrriiing The school bell announces a new day, and teachers go about their work. They are perky in a strange way. Very artificial. They love their jobs, never doubt it, but their jobs are so hard. Draining. At once tugging them down in despair - for they love all of their students in one way or another; and also lifting them up - for many of them are getting it. Little epiphanies happen every day. Trying valiantly they educate thirty children per class with as many different family challenges and backgrounds in each classroom.

But, sadly, sometimes the work is in vain. Not every student has the same brain, shockingly. People are different. Some kids have skills hard to believe possible. Some students have precious few epiphanies. Some teachers don't have to worry about such students; but not all teachers are so lucky. And no matter what situation a teacher finds themselves in--hopeless or hopeful--they need help. Some kids just need a whole lot more help than others.

Sam is a 3rd grader with little to no motor control. He can stand and walk but in a manner reminiscent of drunken sailor Jack Sparrow. It's not an imitation: it is Sam's best gait. There are a lot of labels for his 'problem' (dyspraxia is one), which is (sort of) lucky for Sam. It means he is entitled to extra help.

Locomotion is not Sam's real problem in school. His fingers cannot hold a pencil. Yet. His teachers hold out some hope that, eventually, Sam will get the requisite dexterity But it isn't there. Yet.

Sam may not be the brightest bulb in the building.... but it's hard to tell when his body is the most obvious limiting factor. Thus, Sam qualifies for a Note Taker! An adult to follow him around, learn his capacities, help with his motor skills.... really just take notes for him in class. Sam talks, the note taker interprets and writes it down. It is a simple job. And it only requires about 5-6 hours of work a week.

The job is advertised.

.....

Joe Schmo is fresh out of college with a $20 grand debt. He's a bright chap, precocious, adventurous, still eager to learn, he enjoyed his education. But he didn't spend a lot of his time working. Instead, he went to class, did some extra-curricular stuff like psychology club and Campus Trivia. Now he has spotty, focus-less experience and an American education. That's it. Let's see if he can get a job.

For his scholastic efforts, Joe has been awarded a bachelors of arts in mathematics. He likes numbers like friends, but isn't sure he wants to pursue a master's degree. Instead, he tries to get work. He applies for some data-analyst jobs, but they invariably send him the wrong email back.

Thank you for your interest in our company. Although you are very qualified, we have decided to continue with other....

On to the next application. It gets harder and harder to write job applications. Most of the positions he is qualified for, interested in, and are 'entry level' still ask for a few years worth of experience. Usually doing exactly the work advertised. Confused as to where the starting point is supposed to be, Joe continues. But daunted. He avoids jobs asking for more than 5 years of experience, which dramatically limits the jobs he can even apply for. Even substituting education for experience, he comes up short for most positions.

He looks for more "entry level" positions, perhaps he can work up to data intern, he's not that proud. ...but he is still having hard luck.

Perhaps it is his resume, but Joe is suspecting that his lack of work experience is holding him back. His friends tell him, "It's who you know, in this world..." in a blaming way. As if there were an alternative. They are probably right. Job after job, he's having trouble. Interviews seem to go well. Joe is well dressed, smart, clean... but he cannot for the life of him get a job. Finally, a friend of the family suggests he apply for our note-taker position. She is a teacher and, hoping that this is enough of an 'who you know' to help him, he does. Education's a fine field to get into: he likes teaching math as much as anything else... If it works out, maybe he'll even pursue a teaching license.

First, he's just got to get work. Being stuck with this growing loan is annoying.

But there has to be a good chance, right? Who, with experience, would apply for a 28 hour / week * 11 $ / hr = $308/week (prorated = *3/4 per month = $231 /week * 4.35 weeks / month = ~$1004.42 / month) job? It was about half of a truly living wage ($500, rent + $100, utilities + $275, student loans + $150, groceries (underestimate) = $1,025, over budget by $21! Uh oh...) That's pretty frugal living. If anyone had even a few expenses, and any chance of getting anything better, they wouldn't apply. At least he would be competing with other kids of little-to-no-experience.

Right?

.....

Meet Jhon Valjean.

He's retired. But what with the rising costs of living -- and relatively static pension -- he would like (needs) a little cushion.

But just a little. Maybe $200 a month right now, though that need could grow to as much as $400 a month in a few years. Never can tell. It would also be nice to be doing something. Get out. Talk to people. Work his mind and body a little bit. He worked for 35 years as a licensed teacher and coach, he's not at all used to having time of his own. It is harder to figure out what to do with it than he initially thought.

An impressive portion of his work was with disadvantaged folks. He knows a lot of different problems people may have, not from a book or a lecture, but from first hand experience. He's knows truckloads of tricks to help out a thousand different personalities succeed in school. Or near succeed, at least. He may not be ready to learn! but he already knows a lot.

He casually applies for the Note Taker position.

...

Who would you hire?

Jhon Valjohn is the obvious choice. Joe Schmo might have better luck applying for a $30k a year gig than going up against Jhon. Joe hopes to move onward and upward; Jhon is happy to putter here for 10 years or so, if his health holds out and it all likelihood it will. He's only 58. Joe is going to try and keep his wage as high as he can, and might not be able to handle eventual and inevitable pay-cuts; Jhon will complain only to be social with his coworkers. Joe requires training; Jhon doesn't. Joe is untested; Jhon is seasoned. Joe knows one person obliquely; Jhon knows most of the staff already, somehow.

The problem is a problem of tense. Eventually, Joe will need a job. He is the up-and-coming workforce. If he doesn't get training now, when will he? Someday in the future, Joe will retire in earnest. He's healthy enough that he might just put in 20 more years. A whole new path. At which time, Joe might be reduced to an angry and bitter old man, still 35 years away from any kind of retirement, pretend or not, and with no work history. Being rejected by the work force when he was happiest and most trainable.

These future consequences could be dire. Especially considering that Joe Schmo is not alone. When we are in a society which utilizes a concept such as retirement, but then doesn't actually afford our seniors their retirement, we are left with an ageing and immovable workforce; and a sea of disgruntled young adults with nothing to do. And underpaying dead-end busywork for those who accept it. Designed to funnel wealth and resources into the hands of as few people as possible.

And a society adept at making bad decisions.

...

Jhon is hired, of course, and he happily works two year in the district, showing off his array of applicable and non-applicable talents. They are all entertaining and for a school that's a good thing. He makes friends, becomes a friend and role-model for his student, Sam. He is relied on. Taken for granted. A part of the family. He easily and happily takes on responsibilities not really part of the job, but easy for him to just do. Jhon really is the best choice for this role. Especially considering it is an unlivable wage for anyone making it their only wage.

Then, early in his second year here, a new school board is elected. That happens. It's a 'public' entity. A half a million people who have no idea how a school works take it upon themselves to make the decisions for the schools. They happen to elect a board who also doesn't really know what's going on inside their schools. How could that be a problem? This new board, among other things, is concerned about their image. They worry about the precedent they are setting, with a slew of retirees on their pay roll. They, to some degree, understand our tense problem. The problem of stonewalling our young-and-coming work force (even if their concern ends at the outcome of the elections, it's something). They decree that the district must have fewer retirees on their payroll. Give those entry-level jobs to the kids who need entry-level jobs!

With this new perspective, Jhon is pushed out. Regardless that Sam has only one more year until continuing on to middle school, in which case Sam's positions is dissolved anyone (who cares about middle school kids? They should have figured this out by now!). Regardless that Sam is still here and willing to do the job. Regardless that he knows the boarders of his position and knows a few hundred other students. None of it matters. He is ineligible to apply.

The whole school is upset. What will they do without Jhon? What will Sam do without Jhon? Hopefully he doesn't feel abandoned; all the explanations in the world may not dislodge that seed of sadness and distrust. Especially when he returns to find an array of his teachers gone. Some he's already used to. Support staff come in and out of the room all day and half of them change out every year. The librarian is changing again, no principal ever seems to stay for more than a month. But Jhon was his friend. Like an older brother, or another grandpa. Always there and reliable. Now torn away for his last year in elementary school.

Maybe Joe can apply again. He's been working the last year at a cafe, and part-timing at the grocery store. And while these jobs aren't very respectable. And he is not happy. They do pay a lot more than he could get from the school district. Being a Note-Taker might even be more dead-end than the either of them

A Lesson to Learn about Elections

Voter turnout is at a low. Has been for quite a while. There are a millions speculations as to why this might be, and I will add another.

People are annoyed.

There is a line, when you've asked so many times that a person will say: "You know what? No, I'm not going to go vote. And you know why? Because this is the 324th time you have asked me! This is the 1987th political ad I have seen that has told me nothing! This is the 2349th time I've been pissed off by everyone, Democrat, Republican, and neighbor."

People are tired. They are fed up. And a lot of the blame is due to the over-funding. No one candidate can acknowledge this and be less intrusive. Then they become invisible. The system has to change. People in this country do not trust that their vote even has an impact. Partly because we are all egotistical, and one vote is not about ego. It is about tide. After you vote, you'll never see your vote again. It doesn't have your name on it. You'll never hear, "Because of Paul, the Libertarians won today!" And so there is this false impression that your vote really doesn't matter. Partly because of population; there are so many people that one vote is an infinitesimal portion of the tide. But also, partly, because the system is corrupted. And people can see that.

So, to everyone who decided not to vote I have this to say:

Next time, just vote 3rd party. If you are so disenchanted with the electoral system and process, then simply vote 3rd party.

Imagine this:

Voter turnout, at its highest estimation, is about 65%*.

In a race where one candidate wins 55% to 45% (of the completed votes, seems pretty typical, we'll even leave no votes for another party), means the actual percentages are 35.75% Winner to 29.25% Loser to 35% No one.

If those votes for No one were a vote for the 3rd party, they would have almost won. They would have come in second. And that would have sent a message. But most likely, that 3rd party already had about 1-3% of the votes.

So they would have won.

3rd parties are not so disadvantaged as they seem. If you vote with your conscious. Vote for who you truly believe is the best candidate. Don't follow fear. Or, better yet, don't vote for the rich ass holes who have monoploized the advertising waves for the last 4 months, have filled your email and your physical mail with trash and junk, and phoned your house 78 times.

Well, then the 3rd parties will get all of the votes. The Dems and GOP will each get about 2%.

Wouldn't that be nice?

*http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/11/04/data-deep-dive-voter-turnout-varies-widely-by-state

"Good"

In the United States, when someone asks for something "good", what will they get?

Cheep? Good value, at least? Good set of features?

How often do we thing of: good. Nice. Kind. Considerate. At the very least, not evil.

I went looking for a mobile network, since I haven't had a phone in over a year, and I strive to be moral. But in the US, there don't seem to be network carriers that care. All of those who do are in Britain.

What value is independence if we can't seem to use it well?

The Jefferson County School Board and Politics in the US

The Jefferson County School board should be recalled. All of their decisions have been shrouded in secrecy, even as they claim to be transparent. They are unfit to govern. Announcing one finalist for superintendent is indicative of an ulterior agenda and a disregard for anyone else's ideas, theories, and opinions. They do not have the confidence to even discuss their point.

https://www.change.org/petitions/the-jefferson-county-board-of-education-colorado-we-want-the-jeffco-boe-to-reconsider-the-announcement-of-daniel-mcminimee-as-the-sole-superintendent-finalist-we-request-that-the-board-reexamine-the-candidate-pool-and-announce-3-4-new-finalists-2

The Best of Modern Computer Syncing

Syncing had a dubious start in my circle of friends. We were all worried about our stuff being stuck somewhere in some "cloud". Security and all that. But I experimented and came to rely on it. Now, I use two different computers at different times depending on what I need to do: the desktop is mostly for getting things done; it has my partners art on it and the power to do drawing as she works on being a professional artist and illustrator (doodlepad.com). The laptop is old and shitty and is used when I don't wanna sit at a desk. It can type, and get the Internet (barely), and that's all it needs to do. But it is nice to be able to have whatever I'm working on accessible on whichever computer I happen to be using.

Then UbuntuOne notified that it was closing down. No longer would I be able to use their service.

At the time, I thought, "bummer. But, I guess I'll be able to find something else if they 'aren't able to compete'".

Then I started searching. And discovered that that wasn't the case. SpiderOak is somewhat useful, and basically fills the gap left in the loss of UbuntuOne, but it doesn't sync as quickly. I have a work on my desktop and every time I work on a different computer, my last changes haven't come over. And besides that, it is more time to set up, and doesn't offer as much space.

I am wondering how UbuntuOne wasn't able to compete. I can't find anything even half as good. I will miss it. Ah, me.

Oh well. It's just computers and their drain on my life anyway. Onward and Upward! Who wants to go hiking?

People are Crazy.

The definition of insanity:

Does everyone know that the internet is not a real place? That Facebook.com isn't like a store that you can go inside? There is not, on the internet, much of a limitation on real estate, like there is in a city.

I guess a little while ago the powers-that-be decided that the internet could expand. So some companies hitherto non-existent sprang up to sell domains ending in such things as .electricians and .kansas and .whatever. .democrat was one of the things that popped up.

I don't know about any one else, but the idea that these words are "for sale" has always struck me as an odd thing. Now, there is an infinity of new permutations for sale. To whomever thinks it is a good idea to buy a domain.

Dr. Larry Kawa got it into his educated head that it would be a good idea to buy up as many domains with .democrat on the end that he could think of. Somehow to limit the democrats from buying any? I am not sure. What's to stop anyone from buying 2016.dem instead of 2016.democrat someday? Or 2016.dems? or 2016.net? 2016.america? 2016.wearetheoneswhoareright? There really aren't limitations. If Kawa is buying domains, the only thing this is really doing, as far as I can see, is funneling a bunch of money into the pockets of "Rightside" (who sells the .democrat domains) for doing nothing but being there. All the thousands of domains he buys will be untenable, unfindable in the multilateral internet. Good job, "Rightside" at making a niche market for yourselves. Wish everyone could have such a cushy job. I just wish we has more occupations in this world that actually meant Anything. 

It is bloody pointless. There is no store-front to let anyone know how he really feels (other than than the media attention). But anyone rational will just laugh at the lunacy.  

National Day of Action: Say no to Tar Sands, Please!

Arvada, Colorado, as well as many places today, congregated to say:

Please don't scrape away the Boreal forest of Canada. Don't support it with a pipeline. Not for any amount of energy would this be acceptable and we are doing it for pittance.


​
A 2.9:1 return on energy (EROI), spending natural gas to boil the tar from the sands, and huge amounts of gas to run the machines to kill all the trees and destroy the homes to millions of animals. To quash an abundant and ancient ecosystem more sane than any humans have created.

But there is a ray of hope in the insanity: Our group was small, but we encountered very little criticism. We had a lot of honks and hand waves and several loud "I'm with you!" "You guys are Awesome!" "Thanks!". There were a few people gesticulating madly and claiming that it didn't hurt the environment. But, for their credit, I don't think they know about tar sands. There are a surprising number of people who don't seem to know anything about tar sands. They were probably only talking about the pipeline itself, which is relatively benign, and under debate here in the states. The Keystone XL pipeline surely will hurt the environment, but not on a scale people are unused to seeing. Tar sands....


​
Tar Sands is another matter. And it makes me cry to see it every single time. There is no rational debate about tar sands. It is fanatically awful. It is not defendable, besides by lunacy. Just as Orange Ruffy was fished until it all but died out, destroying acres of irreparable seabed in the process, tar sands in unconscionable. It is destructive, eventually self-destructive. Short sighted, arrogant, and cruel.

What's the problem with the pipeline? It is directly supportive of tar sands. Which must stop. And every sane and educated person from Edmonton to Beijing to Alberta knows it. Tar sands must stop. It produces three times the carbon foot print of conventional oil - 116 kg per barrel. It's already carved a scar on the earth over 715 square kilometers (276 square miles) - as large as the city of Calgary. It would be best if the US, and everyone, refused to buy any of it on moral grounds. And on logical grounds. On the grounds that we are not demons and monsters. Canadian activists are working hard to end tar sands in their home country, I wish them all the luck in the world. There is even a chance, should we be dumb enough to build the pipeline, that the insanity will stop and there wont be any oil to transport anyway. I hope so.

There were more events in Denver, and other cities around the country. It was a National Day of Action, and I thank the Sierra Club for getting us motivated!

Finding a Job with a Job

Whom ever said 'it's easier to find a job with a job' either never tried it, or was trying it in very different predicament than I have.

If one has a job, it is harder to receive phone calls, emails, whathaveyou in a timely manner. Everyone calls at noon. When I am working. And cannot answer the phone.

They wish to schedule interviews in the middle of the day, when I have important prior engagements. I have a lot less time to fill out the same application form over and over and over again.

It is far less stressful - one has income, right? - but easier? Not by my observation.

Re: Can the Wealthy Be THAT Deserving?

Hollywood actors can bring home paychecks as astounding as $50 million dollars! We all know this. Pro-league sports stars can also bring in paychecks larger than you can accurately imagine, as Mr. Mankiw pointed out to the NY Times. Does this fact make you mad? Does it strike you as a great injustice? Does it make you want to take to the streets in protest?

Well... yeah. Sort of, yeah, Mr. Mankiw. Yes. It does make me mad. These celebrities have talent, this is true. And I am not against their being compensated for their skills. However, there comes a point when compensation become gluttony.

Robert Downy Jr. and LeBron James are not the only people in the world with talent. But the way our system is set up, they are the only ones who profit from their skills. Are they the best? In the case of James, maybe. But Robert Downy ain't the best actor. Acting is not so as objective as that. He's just the one who was chosen to be Iron Man. He's just the one who was born with his look, and his string of lucky coincidences which led to being Iron Man on the silver screen.

That's all it takes, sometimes. Luck. We live in a world where a shitty video game from the year 2000 (or earlier) can be repackaged with classically designed, Mario-esque graphics and characters, worse game-play, and make $50,000 a day on advertising. Not on actually doing anything valuable. On advertising. Which, in a modern context, is a lot more synonymous with brainwashing than with edification.

Now, Flappy Bird can go on to support the careers of a lot of writers, discussing what this means. (answer: nothing. People are kinda dumb (granted). Dumb games on phones can be wonderful ways to waste time (obvious). Advertisers spend way to much money on nothing (but no one believes it).)

And while Drew Brees (the Saints) makes $40 a year, Alfred Morris (running back, Washington Redskins) makes only $510,000. Which, while a lot, is at least an understandable amount of money (when I say 'understandable', I mean you can comprehend how much 500 thousand is. 40 million is conceptually beyond the human imagination.) Alfred Morris is still a phenomenal football player. He plays for the NFL. And he is still important to this lucrative entertainment. But he's one of those who might have trouble coping with his medical bills 20 years after he retires. Kobe Bryant can make $30 million a year, but Mario West only pulls in $20,103. The MLB has a minimum salary of $480,000 in 2012; and A-Rod (whom, I'm told, hasn't done shit for several seasons... I don't know. I don't care about sports) made $30 million.

Perhaps in a society which understood the need for a little wealth re-distribution (a necessary for the historical-social science of anthropology), it would be more acceptable for someone to bring home a few million dollars a year. But in our world, where wealth is kept, forever, and it becomes part of a persons intrinsic value: yes, it makes me mad. I don't know who Mankiw talks to, who is unperturbed by the loot an actor, musician, or athlete can haul in so quickly, but they are not in my circle. If economics were truly a science, then we would all know that correlation is not causation (lesson one) and just because you observe something in your world does not make it a common experience (lesson two). That is what studies and data are for. There are 7 billion people on this ball of rock. More than anyone can comprehend. And sometimes they travel in like-minded groups. So we don't always get good communication with people who are different from us. It seems quite probable that the Internet is making this worse because you can peruse only the news that you want to hear.

Mankiw goes on to explain all this flooy about massive corporations and companies overseeing billions of dollars and the risks inherent in the financial market. I will preempt that discussion with my assumption that monopolies and big, giant groups are worse for us all, over all, than having a diverse ecosystem of smaller and local companies. Communities. Steve Jobs has helped Apple make billions and billions of dollars as a tech company. But Apple is a childish company who doesn't like to share. Apple wants everyone to be Apple, which might be ok if everyone wanted to be Apple. But there are huge numbers of people who really, really don't want to be Apple and I can't blame them. The rise of the iPhone is kind of a let down to anyone who doesn't want an iPhone. It makes everyone else's life (and yours...) kinda a little bit more difficult. Is it valuable to our society? Well, those who live on their iToy's will emphatically argue yes. But I wonder. With every creation, there is also destruction. What have we lost? Sometimes there is immense, and calculated, value in the commons. Which is slowly being eroded away by a focus on profit margins and stocks. Really just financial bullshit that keeps our lopsided and blindfolded economy hurtling along like an asteroid. Or inflating like a thin water balloon...

I can't say that Gregory Mankiw is not paying attention. But I must wonder what his motives are. Betting on the rich is a lot like betting on government. Socialism tends to fail because it concentrates power into the hands of a few, which is what our monopoly market system is doing over here. It's not at all different.

Edward R. Morrison

scholar and activist

primary email: Edward.Morrison@WesternAlum.Org

phone: 720-480-6197

facebook: Scaea E. Coarnia (scaeascaea@yahoo.com)

twitter: @scaeascaea

google+: Edward R (ScaeaScaea@gmail.com)

Effect: Change

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Edward R Morrison <edward.morrison@westernalum.org> wrote:

Can the Wealthy be THAT Deserving?

Hollywood actors can bring home paychecks as astounding as $50 million dollars! We all know this. Pro-league sports stars can also bring in paychecks larger than you can accurately imagine, as Mr. Mankiw pointed out to the NY Times. Does this fact make you mad? Does it strike you as a great injustice? Does it make you want to take to the streets in protest?

Well... yeah. Sort of, yeah, Mr. Mankiw. Yes. It does make me mad. These celebrities have talent, this is true. And I am not against their being compensated for their skills. However, there comes a point when compensation become gluttony.

Robert Downy Jr. and LeBron James are not the only people in the world with talent. But the way our system is set up, they are the only ones who profit from their skills. Are they the best? In the case of James, maybe. But Robert Downy ain't the best actor. Acting is not so as objective as that. He's just the one who was chosen to be Iron Man. He's just the one who was born with his look, and his string of lucky coincidences which led to being Iron Man on the silver screen.

That's all it takes, sometimes. Luck. We live in a world where a shitty video game from the year 2000 (or earlier) can be repackaged with classically designed, Mario-esque graphics and characters, worse game-play, and make $50,000 a day on advertising. Not on actually doing anything valuable. On advertising. Which, in a modern context, is a lot more synonymous with brainwashing than with edification.

Now, Flappy Bird can go on to support the careers of a lot of writers, discussing what this means. (answer: nothing. People are kinda dumb (granted). Dumb games on phones can be wonderful ways to waste time (obvious). Advertisers spend way to much money on nothing (but no one believes it).)

And while Drew Brees (the Saints) makes $40 a year, Alfred Morris (running back, Washington Redskins) makes only $510,000. Which, while a lot, is at least an understandable amount of money (when I say 'understandable', I mean you can comprehend how much 500 thousand is. 40 million is conceptually beyond the human imagination.) Alfred Morris is still a phenomenal football player. He plays for the NFL. And he is still important to this lucrative entertainment. But he's one of those who might have trouble coping with his medical bills 20 years after he retires. Kobe Bryant can make $30 million a year, but Mario West only pulls in $20,103. The MLB has a minimum salary of $480,000 in 2012; and A-Rod (whom, I'm told, hasn't done shit for several seasons... I don't know. I don't care about sports) made $30 million.

Perhaps in a society which understood the need for a little wealth re-distribution (a necessary for the historical-social science of anthropology), it would be more acceptable for someone to bring home a few million dollars a year. But in our world, where wealth is kept, forever, and it becomes part of a persons intrinsic value: yes, it makes me mad. I don't know who Mankiw talks to, who is unperturbed by the loot an actor, musician, or athlete can haul in so quickly, but they are not in my circle. If economics were truly a science, then we would all know that correlation is not causation (lesson one) and just because you observe something in your world does not make it a common experience (lesson two). That is what studies and data are for. There are 7 billion people on this ball of rock. More than anyone can comprehend. And sometimes they travel in like-minded groups. So we don't always get good communication with people who are different from us. It seems quite probable that the Internet is making this worse because you can peruse only the news that you want to hear.

Mankiw goes on to explain all this flooy about massive corporations and companies overseeing billions of dollars and the risks inherent in the financial market. I will preempt that discussion with my assumption that monopolies and big, giant groups are worse for us all, over all, than having a diverse ecosystem of smaller and local companies. Communities. Steve Jobs has helped Apple make billions and billions of dollars as a tech company. But Apple is a childish company who doesn't like to share. Apple wants everyone to be Apple, which might be ok if everyone wanted to be Apple. But there are huge numbers of people who really, really don't want to be Apple and I can't blame them. The rise of the iPhone is kind of a let down to anyone who doesn't want an iPhone. It makes everyone else's life (and yours...) kinda a little bit more difficult. Is it valuable to our society? Well, those who live on their iToy's will emphatically argue yes. But I wonder. With every creation, there is also destruction. What have we lost? Sometimes there is immense, and calculated, value in the commons. Which is slowly being eroded away by a focus on profit margins and stocks. Really just financial bullshit that keeps our lopsided and blindfolded economy hurtling along like an asteroid. Or inflating like a thin water balloon...

I can't say that Gregory Mankiw is not paying attention. But I must wonder what his motives are. Betting on the rich is a lot like betting on government. Socialism tends to fail because it concentrates power into the hands of a few, which is what our monopoly market system is doing over here. It's not at all different.

Limboland Comics by Ellie Fortune

Limboland is a fun new comic up at doodlepadart.com. Somewhere between a comic book and a comic strip, it is a lively and fun set of stories.

Limboland is published in short-story installments, not page-by-page as most ecomics I've read before. It is a departure from the traditional method, but for the nature of this 'story' (stories, really), it works very well. It is worth checking out for anyone into sequential art.

Thus far, Limboland is mostly about characters Styxx and Frazzles, and their adventures in their world, Limboland. It is drawn lovingly, and fluidly. The lettering is expressive, as it is done by hand. The panels are friendly. And there's usually a cute joke on the last, single panel page.

It is fun, and currently not an insurmountable investment to get caught up, unlike mainstream superheros who's stories have no ending.

A Need for Listening

Brian McDonald believes in clarity. In an interview for Paper Wings, he wondered that those who choose to be obscure make this choice because they can't be clear. Where is the skill in being random? Where is the skill in being strange? This might be difficult for the sane, but it's more than a little pointless; it is far more impressive to be clear.

But in our national dialogue, clarity can be hard to find. People throw around charged terms with little care to what they might mean on the receiving end of the dialogue. I have no idea what someone might mean by "communism", "free market", "republican", or "socialism". And we could throw the definitions as defined by Webster and Merriam into this, but it wouldn't truly help. Those definitions are not always what a person means when they throw those words around.

Sometimes, a person might mean nothing. They don't know what they are talking about, it only becomes a beacon of anger. They are frustrated; they want someone to blame. They are arrogant; they want someone to look down on. They wish they were someone important; they rattle out their wisdom, for what it is worth.

A grand number of problems might evaporate if we could just achieve this clarity, but it is a hard task. For, along with clarity, one has to be enormously entertaining. Short-winded. Preferably yelling. How else can one hold attention? If I prattle on, as I am wont to do, I will lose my audience. If I start with my assumption, I can easily elicit that anger and cause people to adopt a stance of self-defence. I will anger my enemies, I will be blithe repetition to my allies. When the channel can be changed without even a first thought, nothing ever gets said. No one is listening.