History Paused

A Random Randomnesses Column

Image by 995645 from Pixabay

This is a weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny — the Stickies — to advise 'em now, haunt them after I'm deleted.

Trigger Warning: This column is rated SSC-65: Sexy Seasoned Citizens   

About 

Glossary 

Featuring {Dana}: Persistent auditory hallucination and charming literary device 

"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good." -Bill Gates

Dear Stickies (and gentlereaders),  

If you've been waiting with bated breath for Chapter Six of my condensed history of the world, I apologize.

{You know, I've always wondered...}

It's a transitive verb from Middle English that means to reduce the force or intensity of (Merriam-Webster) and has nothing to do with fishing. 

If you're new here, this will give you a chance to catch up. If you're a regular reader this will build anticipation... All right, I admit it, I just decided to take a break for no special reason.  

- If Bill Gates is so smart, why is my Hotmail account always choked with spam and my Gmail account virtually spam-free? Why can't Willy take Sundar to lunch at one of those fancy places rich people eat, like Olive Garden, and ask for help?

Word on the street is that the Goog is running behind Microsoft in the race to unleash artificial intelligence on those of us who think lunch at Chick-fil-A constitutes a memorable day. Perhaps they could trade info and fix Hotmail for the little people?

After all, Willy fancies himself a philanthropist. 

{I'll bite, what's a Sundar?}

Dana, you are, um... What's the opposite of cosmopolitan? 

{Parochial? Narrow-minded? Rustic?}

Exactly, and likely racist, and probably some sort of ____phobe as well. He's the chief Googler. 

{Huh. I'm surprised you don't call him Sunday, or Sundae. What are you whining about anyway? Hotmail is free, and so is the software you're using, even as we speak, to write what you call a column and what normal people call a blog.} 

Free? I think that if more people realized just how minutely and carefully everything they do online is being tracked, recorded, and sold they would realize that there is still no such thing as a free lunch. 

{Oh please, everybody knows there's no such thing as privacy anymore. What can you do?}

Click here, then scroll down and follow through. 

- Although I hate to admit it, I find that my attention span has slowly but steadily diminished since the worldwide web of all knowledge has become ubiquitous, and I'm not even a social media maniac.

I've entertained thoughts of self-harm while enduring the interminable wait for my toast to pop up.  

{Speaking of which, it's the World Wide Web, not the worldwide web and as far as I know, you're the only one that tosses in "of all knowledge."}

Well, as I've long suspected, worldwide web it turns out (I recently got around to finally looking this up) is grammatically correct, world wide web ain't, but that's not my point. 

It's just a dash of attention-seeking behavior on my part that also subtly implies that it's a web of contradictory, missing, manipulated, and frequently incorrect knowledge.

Not that knowing this keeps me from indulging in extended periods of web surfing from which I  suddenly regain consciousness and ask myself, where have I been? 

Look, a squirrel! 

- For the record, The Wall Street Journal officially and enthusiastically embraced the ongoing decline of journalistic standards on 01/06/24. Granted, this is a somewhat arbitrary date given that my personal paper of record (for now) has been declining in quality slowly (but steadily) for a while now.  

However, Emma Tucker, named editor-in-chief in December of '22 by King Rupert (who has since abdicated the throne to his son, at least officially) published a sleazy, speculation-filled front-page hit piece — A Tony Stark (Elon Musk) takedown. 

{Wait-wait-wait. Mr. Musk has no shortage of critics loose in the world.}

Absabalutely, and I'm sure it's a coinkydink that WSJ reporter Tim Higgins, who's been writing almost exclusively about Musk for quite some time, has recently written several articles that read more like editorials than hard news stories. 

When Rupert Murdoch folded the WSJ into his media empire he assured the world he wouldn't lower the paper's famously high standards. In fact, he expanded the Op-Ed section, which was/is separated from the news division by a Chinese wall.

{Wait-wait-wait. Isn't Chinese wall a racist term?}

Nah, it's just culturally insensitive, according to Wikipedia anyway. The Wikipedia entry mentions an unintentionally hil-LAR-ious suggested replacement, cone of silence, a technical term that also happens to be the name of a device used in a formerly famous TV show.

This column was sitting in a drawer, as you can tell by the date of the referenced hit piece (1/6), but the Journal has since published another hit piece about Mr. Musk. It's basically the same as the first one: mostly unidentified sources say Elon does, or at least did, a lot of drugs.

I find it interesting that both major articles' comment sections overwhelmingly supported Musk. I'd love to know what the strategery is, perhaps controversy for its own sake?

I refuse to post any links to this blatant purple journalism but in the Journal's defense, they recently published an in-depth piece about the fact Taylor Swift's dad played college football for a year.

The Other Football Player in Taylor Swift's Life 

Now that's world-class journalism. 

Poppa loves you,

Have an OK day

Scroll down if you wish to share my work or access my golden oldies.   

I post links to my columns (and other stuff) on Facebook so that you can love me, hate me, or lobby to have me publically flogged.  

  

The History of the World (condensed), Ch. 5

The United States and modern economics both began in the same year. 

Image by JJ Jordan from Pixabay

This is a weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny — the Stickies — to advise 'em now, haunt them after I'm deleted.

Trigger Warning: This column is rated SSC-65: Sexy Seasoned Citizens   

About 

Glossary 

Featuring {Dana}: Persistent auditory hallucination and charming literary device 

"History becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." 

                                                                                          -H.G. Wells

Dear Stickies (and gentlereaders),  

In the year 1776, after a coupla hundred thousand years of just scraping by and occasionally killing each other while simultaneously trying to avoid being killed by a somewhat bloodthirsty Mother Nature, some H. sapiens launched the American experiment and a Mr. Smith published a book. 

Adam Smith was, and is, a well-regarded absent-minded professor with a first-rate mind. He gave up his day job as a popular professor at Glasgow University in 1764, to tutor and travel with a young Scottish nobleman (road trip!). 

They spent a couple of years touring continental Europe and met several leading thinkers of the day (e.g. Benjamin Franklin) and Mr. Smith was given a life pension by the grateful nobleman that enabled him to spend the next ten years or so working on his magnum opus, “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.”

In other words, he set out to discover the best policies a given nation should pursue so that everyone could make a buck.

Warning: do not try to read The Wealth of Nations unless you enjoy the writing style of 18th-century academics (I’m thinking this is a relatively small group of people) and you’re much smarter and more patient than I am (I’m thinking this is a relatively large group of people). 

The commas and semicolons seemingly reproduce themselves as you try and decipher the text. Find a commentator that you trust to render Mr. Smith’s ideas into modern English.

In Mr. Smith’s defense, it ain’t easy to be one of the founders of a field of study (modern economics). Also, I must warn any kneejerk anti-capitalists that beating up on Mr. Smith because you think he was just another greed-head will make you look goofy as he’s well known for his belief that accumulating wealth and material goods won’t make you happy.

Besides inventing modern economics, he also explored morality and ethics. He wrote a book titled The Theory of Moral Sentiments that is still highly regarded. Incidentally, both it and The Wealth of Nations were best sellers in their day and literally changed the world.  

Adam Smith wanted to figure out what the optimal system was for a free people to attain whatever level of economic security they thought was necessary and appropriate to keep the wolf from the door. He also warned the world about crony capitalism and rent-seeking, two of the monsters currently attempting to strangle America to death. 

Although he was financially quite successful, he quietly and discreetly gave away most of his money and lived simply. I highly recommend P.J. O’Rourke’s, "On The Wealth of Nations”. Mr. O’Rourke was not an economist, which is not necessarily a bad thing. He was, however, very smart, very funny, and lived in the real world. I highly recommend any of his books, essays, and articles.

“Economic progress depends upon a trinity of individual prerogatives: pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade,” says O’Rourke, stating the fundamentals of Smith’s thought. 

{That’s it? That’s all it takes for a country to be prosperous? Everdamnbody? I find that hard to believe.} 

Well, more or less, Dana The rule of law is also an essential component if you think that it’s important that everdamnbody should have to play by the same rules and that cheats and bullies should be spanked.  

Disclaimer: I’m a former, unapologetic, unrepentant wild-eyed free marketeer and libertarian who seems to be getting more and more conservative and nationalistic with each passing year in an effort to figure out how to mitigate the negative impacts of the global economy on my fellow Deplorables. 

However, capitalism has provided us with a level of prosperity that almost everyone who lived prior to about 1850 or so could only dream of. So I strongly disagree with the tendency of well-meaning (or otherwise) progressives, socialists, and communists to frequently use the word capitalist as an epithet. 

I describe myself as a sorta/kinda or bleeding heart libertarian (BHL), primarily because I’m all for the rationally designed safety net I mentioned earlier. Many libertarians think that’s wrong-headed or impossible. 

Also, there are political philosophers loose in the world who promote something they call BHL but some use terms like social justice and anti-racism, words, and concepts, that as currently defined by many, I have significant problems with. 

{What's that got to do with the history of the world?}

I guess it's a highly opinionated history of the word given the next three paragraphs. 

Communism, in spite of its adherent's claim that it would work if ever done properly, is an obvious dead end, often literally, as the 80 to 100 million bodies piled up in the last century in its name would seem to indicate. 

Socialism is a great idea, all we have to do is change human nature first and lock up all the screwballs like me that are obsessed with personal freedom. Progressivism and/or democratic socialism, or how to have your cake and eat it tooism, is the current flavor of the month for the Utopianists of the world. 

Many people want the benefits of a free market combined with a big, juicy welfare state with millions of rules and unionized bureaucrats, but someone else, preferably the evil rich, should pay the bill. Unfortunately, there just aren't nearly enough of them.

Back to Adam Smith. Smith’s work contradicted a widely held belief of his time, mercantilism. This is the belief that a nation’s wealth is determined by how much gold, silver, cash, ginormous TVs, etc. it can accumulate, after all, there’s only so much wealth to go around, right?

Therefore, you should export for the cash and block, or at least penalize, imports. This view of the world, which currently is enjoying a comeback, leads otherwise clear-thinking people to believe in the Boarding House Pie Fallacy.  

Say you're living in a boarding house (look it up, kids). It’s dinner time and Mrs. McGillicuddy is serving up her famous caramel-apple pie for dessert. Since there’s only so much pie to go around, and fat Freddie's at the table, it behooves everyone to employ a strategery that will ensure an equitable portion of pie. 

Mr. Smith (no relation to the Mrs. Smith of Mrs. Smith's Pies) contends that boarding house wisdom has limited applicability. 

There’s an easier and much more effective way to get what you want — that has the added benefit of not having to impose high tariffs (which begat high prices) and over-regulate anyone — the pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade. Skilfully employed, these three ensure that everyone can have their own pie. 

Stay tuned.

(To be continued...)

Poppa loves you,

Have an OK day

Scroll down if you wish to share my work or access my golden oldies.   

I post links to my columns (and other stuff) on Facebook so that you can love me, hate me, or lobby to have me publically flogged.

The History of the World (Condensed), Ch. 4

 

Image by JJ Jordan from Pixabay

This is a weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny — the Stickies — to advise 'em now, haunt them after I'm deleted.

Trigger Warning: This column is rated SSC-65: Sexy Seasoned Citizens   

About 

Glossary 

Featuring {Dana}: Persistent auditory hallucination and charming literary device 

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And it comes with the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke 

Dear Stickies (and gentlereaders),  

Chapter two ended with "And then, in 1776, the planet Earth finally caught a break" but chapter three began with <INSERT THE SOUND OF SCREAMING TIRES IN A PANIC STOP HERE>. I clarified that the end of history hadn't been reached, heaven hadn't come to Earth, and  H. sapiens still had feet of clay. Decks cleared, I present chapter four. I'd refresh my coffee at this point if I were you. 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Or...

Self-evidently, although we’re all unique in how we look, how smart we are, and what innate talents we have, nobody is automatically born better than anyone else. 

We are entitled to live as long as biology and fate permit; we’re free to pursue our own path and discover what it is that will keep getting us out of bed in the morning until we won't (or can't) get out of bed in the morning.  

I maintain that this is obvious — self-evident — to any more or less well-adjusted kid on the playground. I maintain that this is obvious to any emotionally healthy, clear-thinking grup. 

I maintain that any well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) king, cleric, or politically correct or corrupt bully that maintains otherwise is delusional and needs to be dealt with appropriately.

{Obvious huh?}

Yeah, Dana, at least to those of us fortunate enough to have been born into circumstances that permit us to take the concept for granted — and even many of us who weren't. Unfortunately, a um... more traditional way, the way of the all-powerful alpha male, is still in vogue hither and yon.    

We have two choices. The traditional way, the way of the alpha male and/or the occasional alpha female, the way of the dicktater, king or queen, the way of the high priest(ess), and the like — or the way of the rational (well, more or less) individual.

Rational people employ reason.

Wikipedia: “Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.”

AKA critical thinking, an enemy of Critical Theory. 

Rationality is a buggy, crash-prone app still in beta testing. But for the dead, mostly white dudes that invented the USA, fortunately for us, reason was a thing, a very big thing. We got lucky. 

Many of them were the "1%" of their day, but back in their particular day something called the Age of Enlightenment (or Reason) was rockin’ the world, and a new meme was going around.

Say you decided that the traditional way of doing things only worked well for a tiny group of people and you could rewrite the rules, using reason, to set up a new system that benefited everyone equally, at least theoretically, what would you do?

What they did, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, was to set up the USA. The wailing and gnashing continues, as it should in a democratic republic. 

Fortunately, the new system includes built-in mechanisms to fix and/or change what the Citizens of the Republic decide needs to be fixed and/or changed. It ain’t easy to change, and it shouldn’t be, considering how thin the veneer of rationality is.            

Emotionally healthy, clear-thinking kids and grownups realize they’re not the only kid on the playground and that just enough rules are necessary (this is the rule of law, as opposed to rule by an arbitrary boss) to ensure everyone has fun, shares the equipment, and that bullies are not allowed. 

This is called government and it requires that a few conditions be met in order for the people to remain as free as realistically possible. 

First, we the governed, get to decide what the rules are. Second, the rules should be as few in number as possible so that individuals remain as free as possible. Third, great care must be taken to avoid the potential hooge, honking, downside of democracy: a tyranny of the majority.

If a majority of the kids on the playground get together to ban little Timmy from the premises just because of his unfortunate tendency to pick his nose even though he’s not breaking any rules, a grownup (the rule of law) must step in to protect little Timmy’s right to be there. 

This is the why and what of the U.S. Constitution. America's called the American experiment because no one else in history had managed to pull off anything like it and many thought we wouldn’t either. Some still don’t, and there’s no guarantee that it will ultimately end well.

Now, just because we’re lucky enough to have been born members of the species that sits at the top of the food chain in the most prosperous nation the world has seen (so far at least) we still live in a dangerous, hostile world that guarantees nothing but our eventual death. 

It’s up to us to come up with food, clothing, and shelter and defend ourselves from those who want to kill us for fun or profit.

And yes, a nation as well off as America is morally required to install a rationally designed safety net to catch everyone that fate shoves off the trampoline, but not necessarily for those who deliberately jumped off because they thought it would be fun. 

I once heard a nurse that was the head of some organization or other declaring with passion and conviction that, “Healthcare is a right!” in a radio interview.

No, it’s not.

Life, freedom, and the pursuit of whatever it is that keeps us getting out of bed are the fundamental rights everyone obviously should get. But even these natural, fundamental rights are a reality, not just a potential reality, only for those fortunate enough to be born in a country and a culture that acknowledges and defends them. 

You may have noticed some world-class thugs look at things a bit differently.

Everything else you’re entitled to depends on what you and your fellow citizens agree upon and are prepared to work your bums off to pay for. 

If you don’t believe this, try performing the following experiment.

Have yourself stranded on a desert island without a crew from a reality television show. Raise your fist to the sky and DEMAND! food, clothing, and shelter (and healthcare), then wait and see what happens. 

Oh, and make sure you don’t let your situational awareness chops get rusty while you’re waiting because Mother Nature is notoriously oblivious to our rights. Like any good mom, if she has a favorite, she keeps it to herself, and she doesn’t seem to lose any sleep when her kids eat each other to stay alive.

Also, please note that you don’t have to ask nicely for life (however temporary), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Self-evidently, unless Gilligan and company show up and turn out to be evil, drug-addled crazies (which would explain a lot), you'd be about as free as you can be within the physical limitations of life on Earth.

{Phew... talk about dated cultural references!}

And unless Mr. Howell has brought along a trunk full of fentanyl, you could stay as free as possible (all things considered) if you and the "seven stranded castaways" simply agreed to respect each other's unalienable rights.

(To be continued...)

Poppa loves you,

Have an OK day

Scroll down if you wish to share my work or access my golden oldies.   

I post links to my columns (and other stuff) on Facebook where you can love me, hate me, or lobby to have me publically flogged.