There's just too much on my mind these days. One of the most disturbing things I've been thinking about is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ramping up in Gaza. Israel has launched a HUGELY disproportionate response to Hamas' lobbing of rockets. According to Al Jazeera over 660 Palestinians have been killed and over 3700 have been wounded since Israel's December 27th assault began. To get a fresh perspective on the matter one must look beyond western news sources which are either unable or unwilling to show the sheer carnage of the conflict. The most alarming images I've seen from this round of fighting have been from China's Xinhua News Agency depicting images of children slain when Israel shelled a UN run school. Reminds me of a Rudyard Kipling poem, but I digress.
Also on my mind is work. I'm concerned that I'm spending too much time performing tactical tasks rather than focusing on more strategic initiatives. Oh well, this stuff must be done and I'm more than happy to pitch in as there is plenty to do...although I do conceive of a life more adventurous one of these days *sigh*.
One thing that I'm trying to not think about, but still seems to seep its way into my gray matter the way this winter rain seems to find every crack on the root splintered sidewalk is law school apps. My dead line is fast approaching at the end of the month and I'm thinking more and more that I'd like to join the military rather than spend another 3 years at school. I can't place my finger on it but it just seems like the right thing to do. I have a restlessness that I know can't be quelled by spending more time in class. I'm still applying to all of the schools that I want to go to though because it's good to have options, right?
One last thing on my mind is the death of Samuel Huntington on Christmas eve. No commentary; if you know who Sam Huntington is, then you know the mark that his theories left on post-Cold War liberal thought...and I just wanted to acknowledge that the world has lost one of the great minds of our time.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Sunday, December 21, 2008
why "The Minimalist Hobo"?
So someone asked me recently "Why the whole minimalist attitude thingy?", and since I was just leaving a party with an open bar, I was unable to put together a coherent string of sentences to convey the minimalist philosophy; this entry is going to rectify that.
Minimalism as a concept is a reaction to the "Consumerist" mentality of modern society. There is a consistent belief in the Post Modern School of Thought that the genealogy of the discourse matters -- that is, the historical discourse that we have been told is fact and that we have accepted as fact is, in reality, the subjective point of view of the "powerful". Now this does not mean that there is a conscious conspiratorial effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses of society. Rather, this is a byproduct of the winners of any given conflict (whether it's a military conflict or a "conflict" in the market) being able to shape and control the discourse. Over time the discourse is predicated upon the prior premise and before anyone realizes it, society is trapped in a parochial mindset that is unwilling, or unable to question who is promoting the discourse and for what purpose.
To paraphrase Noam Chomsky "The New York Times is writing history". What Chomsky means is that when future scholars look to document and study history they will look to sources such as the New York Times archives to determine what important events occurred at any given time. This means that what is supposed to be a completely objective examination of history may viewed through the lens of an organization and reporters that may have a subjective interpretation. Ultimately this subjective interpretation will be regarded as "truth".
In all societies the manufacturers of truth are the powerful and in American Society the powerful are often those with commercial interests. These commercial interest have been successful in co-opting a mind share of American Consumers with their subjective messages therein forging an attitude of "buy! buy! buy!". In every magazine the reader is bombarded with ads for name brand crap, Television programs inundate with a string of commercials promoting the latest and greatest whatever. None of which can ever bring fulfillment or happiness. Minimalism is an attempt to question, analyze, or at least ignore the message of the day. The ultimate goal is to break free from the consumerist mindset which exhausts the monetary resources of a society. Buying things in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing--Inequality, however, is. Once a society is able to break free from the consumerist mindset excess resources (i.e., savings) can be used to promote development in underprivileged societies.
Now it was posed to me that this theory reeks of communism with the whole "wealth redistribution" thing. In actuality this is way different; Communism relies on a centrally planned economy which dictates how the resources will be distributed. In minimalist theory the consumer is free to earn what the market is willing to pay for their skill set; the consumer then chooses what to spend their income on. The minimalist should only purchase what is needed for survival and some minimal level of comfort and security. Excess resources, which are garnered by not giving in to the commercial demands, can be then redistributed to the underprivileged in the form of micro-credit loans. The difference in this form of redistribution is that the consumer has the choice of how when and where to distribute the resources; participation in microcredit programs is encouraged but the consumer may choose to donate money to NGOs or any number of development programs. So there it is in a nutshell...questions?
Minimalism as a concept is a reaction to the "Consumerist" mentality of modern society. There is a consistent belief in the Post Modern School of Thought that the genealogy of the discourse matters -- that is, the historical discourse that we have been told is fact and that we have accepted as fact is, in reality, the subjective point of view of the "powerful". Now this does not mean that there is a conscious conspiratorial effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses of society. Rather, this is a byproduct of the winners of any given conflict (whether it's a military conflict or a "conflict" in the market) being able to shape and control the discourse. Over time the discourse is predicated upon the prior premise and before anyone realizes it, society is trapped in a parochial mindset that is unwilling, or unable to question who is promoting the discourse and for what purpose.
To paraphrase Noam Chomsky "The New York Times is writing history". What Chomsky means is that when future scholars look to document and study history they will look to sources such as the New York Times archives to determine what important events occurred at any given time. This means that what is supposed to be a completely objective examination of history may viewed through the lens of an organization and reporters that may have a subjective interpretation. Ultimately this subjective interpretation will be regarded as "truth".
In all societies the manufacturers of truth are the powerful and in American Society the powerful are often those with commercial interests. These commercial interest have been successful in co-opting a mind share of American Consumers with their subjective messages therein forging an attitude of "buy! buy! buy!". In every magazine the reader is bombarded with ads for name brand crap, Television programs inundate with a string of commercials promoting the latest and greatest whatever. None of which can ever bring fulfillment or happiness. Minimalism is an attempt to question, analyze, or at least ignore the message of the day. The ultimate goal is to break free from the consumerist mindset which exhausts the monetary resources of a society. Buying things in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing--Inequality, however, is. Once a society is able to break free from the consumerist mindset excess resources (i.e., savings) can be used to promote development in underprivileged societies.
Now it was posed to me that this theory reeks of communism with the whole "wealth redistribution" thing. In actuality this is way different; Communism relies on a centrally planned economy which dictates how the resources will be distributed. In minimalist theory the consumer is free to earn what the market is willing to pay for their skill set; the consumer then chooses what to spend their income on. The minimalist should only purchase what is needed for survival and some minimal level of comfort and security. Excess resources, which are garnered by not giving in to the commercial demands, can be then redistributed to the underprivileged in the form of micro-credit loans. The difference in this form of redistribution is that the consumer has the choice of how when and where to distribute the resources; participation in microcredit programs is encouraged but the consumer may choose to donate money to NGOs or any number of development programs. So there it is in a nutshell...questions?
Thursday, December 18, 2008
I Literally LOL-ed.
This Australian Guy, David Thorne, has a blog wherein he will sometimes send prank emails to people. This is some of the funniest stuff I've ever read. In one email thread he has a dialog with one of his new neighbors that sent him a notice that he was having a housewarming party. The intent of the neighbor was to let David know that he was having a party and to warn him about possible noise; definitely not an invite. Well David proceeds to invite himself and hilarity ensues! In another email thread David responds to an email notification from his bank...classic! Note the subject line on the 8th email in this thread, hahaha. This is good stuff.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Going Negative...
How worried are investors these days? Well here's a good indication as commented on in the Financial Times; investors are scared to death of putting their money in traditional banks for fear that the money wont be there in the future, or worse yet, the bank itself wont be there. Even more frightening is the prospect of investing in an increasingly volatile market. The safe haven for investors these days seems to be US government debt, and the demand for US Treasury bills shows it.
The demand for t-bills has been so great that the interest rates actually went negative earlier this week...what does this mean? It means that investors are actually willing to pay the US government to hold their debt...The way t-bills traditionally work is that the government proposes a debt; investors "loan" the government money by purchasing t-bills; the government pays the investor interest on the t-bill.
So let's say that I loan the government $1000 (by buying a $1000 treasury bill) at 5% interest; at the end of one year the US government will owe me $1050 ($1000 x 1.05). With a negative interest rate investors are willing to take a loss in exchange for the peace of mind that their money will be there in the future. Let's pretend I purchase that same $1000 treasury bill at -5% interest; at the end of one year the government will owe me $950...I would actually be paying the US government ($50.00) to borrow money from me! And yet, with the mess that financial institutions and the markets are in this is the best bet! How's that for worried?!?!!?
The demand for t-bills has been so great that the interest rates actually went negative earlier this week...what does this mean? It means that investors are actually willing to pay the US government to hold their debt...The way t-bills traditionally work is that the government proposes a debt; investors "loan" the government money by purchasing t-bills; the government pays the investor interest on the t-bill.
So let's say that I loan the government $1000 (by buying a $1000 treasury bill) at 5% interest; at the end of one year the US government will owe me $1050 ($1000 x 1.05). With a negative interest rate investors are willing to take a loss in exchange for the peace of mind that their money will be there in the future. Let's pretend I purchase that same $1000 treasury bill at -5% interest; at the end of one year the government will owe me $950...I would actually be paying the US government ($50.00) to borrow money from me! And yet, with the mess that financial institutions and the markets are in this is the best bet! How's that for worried?!?!!?
Friday, November 28, 2008
Social D is coming to Austin
It's about time!!! Social Distortion is coming to Austin March 7!!!! It's been years since I've seen them live; this is going to be awesome. There's a rumor that Tiger Army will be playing too. There's a roadtrip involved and definitely lots of partying after the show...deets later!
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Toward a Universal Truth?
I've been looking, for the past few years, for a universal truth. A moral absolute that transcends geographic and cultural boundaries; an undeniable commonality...up until now I've been pretty unsuccessful, but I never stopped looking. Every time I thought I had a theory I would always find a valid argument against it. I thought "thou shalt not kill" would be a moral absolute; but then I encountered the self defense and Jus ad Bellum justifications. I thought surely rape, slavery, gender equality, etc. would be regarded universally around the world, but further investigation proved that these concepts are culture bound.
Earlier I was reading a summary on the English School of International Relations and I stumbled upon this: An author named John Vincent in his book Human Rights and International Relations posited that a person has the right to not go hungry; that no one should be denied basic sustenance. The impact of Vincent's assertion should not be taken lightly for this reason: Since the beginning of civilization mankind has struggled to find a common ground in the field of International Relations; a universal belief of a single human right can lay the groundwork for future cooperation amongst state actors. Unfortunately ideological deviations between states have hindered any progress in this area. The fact that Vincent was bold enough to identify an area for universal acceptance inspires hope. Author Andrew Linklater writes of Vincent's theory
So will this be the one moral absolute that will be the "silver bullet" in International Relations? Probably not, but it's a start. And considering that I thought a universal truth was impossible, I'm starting to like our odds.
Earlier I was reading a summary on the English School of International Relations and I stumbled upon this: An author named John Vincent in his book Human Rights and International Relations posited that a person has the right to not go hungry; that no one should be denied basic sustenance. The impact of Vincent's assertion should not be taken lightly for this reason: Since the beginning of civilization mankind has struggled to find a common ground in the field of International Relations; a universal belief of a single human right can lay the groundwork for future cooperation amongst state actors. Unfortunately ideological deviations between states have hindered any progress in this area. The fact that Vincent was bold enough to identify an area for universal acceptance inspires hope. Author Andrew Linklater writes of Vincent's theory
[Vincent] argued that the right of the individual to be free from starvation is one human right on which all states can agree on despite their ideological differences. Vincent argued that a global action to end starvation is essential since the absence of the basic means of sustenance should always shock the conscience of humankind. Consensus on this matter would be a significant advance in relations between the Western world, which has traditionally been concerned with order rather than justice, and the non-Western world, which has always stressed the need for greater justice.
So will this be the one moral absolute that will be the "silver bullet" in International Relations? Probably not, but it's a start. And considering that I thought a universal truth was impossible, I'm starting to like our odds.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Post for the sake of posting
Yea, it's been a while since my last post, but I've been super busy. So here's a post just to keep things going. I don't have too much to say, so you probably shouldn't even take your time to read this. As a matter of fact you will regret wasting your time on this post, and then you'll be all pissed off at me...then the next time you see me you'll be all like "dude, your last blog post totally wasted my time; you're a douchebag", then you'll punch me in the head...I don't want to be punched in the head so please don't read this...
What a killer week. I had an Econ test today that I've been studying for since Sunday...I just took it and I have NO idea whether or not I got a single answer correct. At least the weekend is nearly here. I'm hungry but I have absolutely no energy to cook anything and even less energy to go out and get something...feeling very introverted tonight so staying in & recharging my batteries sounds like a good idea. Now if I could only get someone to bring me some food I'd be set.
What a killer week. I had an Econ test today that I've been studying for since Sunday...I just took it and I have NO idea whether or not I got a single answer correct. At least the weekend is nearly here. I'm hungry but I have absolutely no energy to cook anything and even less energy to go out and get something...feeling very introverted tonight so staying in & recharging my batteries sounds like a good idea. Now if I could only get someone to bring me some food I'd be set.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)