Messages

Just having a real hard time with the economics behind the idea.

Looks like a setup for soylent green.

The disassociated drop out, the rich get richer and maintain control through force, you get one of four roles to play...dog, pig, sheep or rat.

The tracking shouldn't be too bad, everyone who wants to vote in the new system will need some form of ID to ensure single votes. 


...

Yeah, you're right, I'm Pope, may as well be president too! 

Better yet, run for office.

Spout a bunch of God is good nonsense and shape yourself up to look and act like a politician, get some cash from the big boys then get in office and work for the little guy and social justice.  You're still free to do that.

I'll vote for ya.

I don't believe that all the puppets are playing for the same team, there are a few deviants from the norm running, but the money and power don't want them to win so you don't hear much from them.  Well, maybe I'm just throwing away my vote, but the hope is that more and more people will see that third parties and minor candidates are getting more popular, which will, hopefully, feed itself. 

What happens when the small fries go big?  Probably the same betrayals as always, but at least there is some hope of change.

Opting out will work if you can feed off of the resources of the current system, but not using money and  not voting isn't going to give you a real popular party.  Where will the food and materials necessary for life come from, those still in the old system?  And why should one arbitrary new system be used over any other arbitrary system?  Hell, you could have one president elected for each web portal, because, for sure, there is no unity on the net.  Maybe you could get all the malcontents together to agree there is a problem but beyond that there won't be much agreement.

IMHO...

Things are going to get a lot worse before they ever get better.

The capitalists are consolidating at a faster rate than ever before, perhaps soon they will have a winner, the guy/gal who owns everything.  Politics is just a means of settling the lower classes by offering them a (false) hope of being able to change the system.   With the current players and field, the Reps will win the big seat, backed by the Supreme Court.  I'm expecting the same shenanigans we've seen the last two elections with perhaps a bit more bravado on the losing side this time, but still no widespread violence, and more importantly, no change for the better, unless you're filthy rich and have something to gain from a less friendly more intrusive law enforcement package.

Besides that, there are the not insignificant facts that if Americans were to revolt en masse against their government, they would be laid to waste by the strongest military power the world has ever known;

Have you seen the non-lethal weapons the military has been developing?  Bet they're not for invading foreign governments...

that most Americans just don't care enough to defend something as abstract as Liberty against a tyrannical government when they have something as literal as an iPod and "bills to pay;" and that nobody outside of the Establishment would have the first clue about how to design a proper Government anyway; so even if there was a Revolution, it would fail.

Its not that they don't care, they just aren't learning how or why the country was formed.  They have no basis for complaining and attacks against the status quo are scary...Change is not good unless you're at Taco Bell.

Well, that kind of thinking is depressing for a person like me who not only thinks the system has failed but has long since outlived its usefulness anyway. Add to that my delusions of grandeur and my foolhardy wish to "live in interesting times" (which is an old Chinese curse, by the way), and it's just a mood killer when you tell me how broken the world is and then say, "Eh, but whatcha gonna do?"

Except we can fix it. Politics is a game, so quit playing.

The choice to not play is a vote in and of itself.  It would be nice to set up a democratic utopia, but without changing the existing system you may be hard up for resources.

Sad as it is the choice must be to vote for one of the major ass clowns and hope that the powers that be finish up their god damned pyramid so that a paradigm shift can actually take place.

I wouldn't be surprised to see creativity to continue down the path it always has. Creativity spills out of some humans, like Wango Tango juice at a San Francisco Discordian Meetup. Creative people create. Musicians note music, artists paint and draw, poets compose, writers write and the muses lead them all to do this whenever they can. The concept that these people reap continuing benefits for the reuse of their creativity appears only recently in our history. Creative people will create, even if there is no market for their creation (see half the art students from my graduating class as proof). If the muses inspire works that will not be appreciated, how much more simple it will be to inspire works that will be appreciated, but simply aren't marketable in a capitalistic society.

I mostly worry that creativity may not be commerically viable unless it is "in tune" with the current pop culture, meaning only the producers of that really get any reward.  You can see it already, kinda, with the empahsis on formulaic pop, r'n'b and hiphop.  Backing most other acts, if they don't already sound like successful acts, is just too risky with the lower capital resources.  It could lead to a real cultural stagnation, if creativity is limited by market forces.

I'm not sure that creativity can be limited by market forces directly, but indirectly the market could play a large role.  By limiting what is available for synthesis, otherwise known as inspirational material, the market narrows down the breadth of what can be produced, i.e., an artist who hears only one other artist in a lifetime will be hard pressed to come up with something completely original.  Most likely the format, instruments and styles will be some evolution of the original artist and be recognizeably similiar.  On the other hand, an artist who is exposed to many different styles has more to pick and choose from and can offer a wider range of creative synthesis. 

So, with this being added

In addition, I've reached the aprt in Black Swan about how the Matthew effect, which applies to pop culture, as well.  The more people pay attention to something, the more it feeds itself.  It also seems like there's an upper limit of popular things/bands/artists/producers that the public can focus on at any one time.

and the addition that with a limit of popular focus items a lot of smaller market will be lost/forgotten/unexposed, it seems that the idea pool will become smaller, thereby making creation less esoteric and more formula driven.  The result?  A bunch of crap that all looks/sounds relatively familiar and similiar.   Listen to the radio lately?  Its oldies vs theoneband and art is popularly represented by giant pictures of sports heroes and posterized images.  There is more and better out there, but you have to take it upon yourself to get outside of your ordinary influences as big media will keep sending the same crap down the line as long as it sells.

Until I read this:

Just 'cause this is a Discordian board doesn't mean we eat up dada bullshit

Well, just read more into it until you are happy...

'We' might eat up dada bullshit for other reasons,

~also~

Just 'cause this is a Discordian board doesn't mean 'we' don'teat up dada bullshit either. 

Anyway, for the statement to have any truth, you'd have to assemble a group which would respond to 'we' which may cause you difficulty in the first place around here.

And for those around here who like the dada crap, please remember that:

All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. A public service clarification by the Sri Syadasti School of Spiritual Wisdom, Wilmette.
The teachings of the Sri Syadasti School of Spiritual School of Spiritual Wisdom are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. Patamunzo Lingananda School of Higher Spiritual Wisdom, Skokie.

So get happy, boyo, illigitame non carborundum.

Bleh, you misunderstand good ole "W"...

He has secured our freedom and is keeping it safe for us because  if he just left it sitting around, anyone could just walk in and take it.


.   

An almost kindred spirit for you?

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/dec/21/strange-santa-scene-states-bremerton-mans-on/

The best part of this dude's rant is that he is sick of Santa being comercially exploited... but my cabbage patch is a bit heavy on the lean of mind...   

Sounds like a good way for the execs to push for more control of the internet through their locally bought elected officials.  If the problem is that there is no money from internet broadcasts, the obvious solution is to make sure that revenue can be collected from the viewers.  This may entail blocking countries and IP's which harbor pirates  as well as more rigorous enforcement of copyrights.  In the current political environment of protectionism outweighing the forces of liberty, at least in the US, it seems that a greater emphasis on copyright protection would be more likely to come out of our leaders than letting go of age old profits.  If this does not come directly from the government, private industry may itself decide to put together another group like the RIAA to ensure the rights of the larger companies are protected.

So if you're creative and in with the big shots, you will be paid and your rights enforced while the rest of us toil for other rewards and hope to make the rent a different way...

  Then there will always be the copyright cats who will copyright your hard work and protect it under the skirts of the big media players