Econopocalypse

If there was ever any hope that I might find a glimmer of wisdom and truth in the Republican party, it was lost with the creation of their budget proposal last week. It would contain the largest tax cut for the wealthy in history. Absolutely the wrong thing to do, as they continue to propose the very opposite of what needs to be done.

Was the beginning of the econopacalypse Clinton's fault? Or perhaps it began back in a Republican Congress. At least some people saw the beginning of economic havoc.

Poor Billy over at FNC still can't comprehend the paradigm shift that is being caused by technological advancement. He thinks newspapers are going out of business because they are "far left." He doesn't get that it is the nature of newspapers themselves that is becoming outdated, and soon ALL newspapers will either have to adapt or cease to exist.

Now, for something more constructive:

It is useful, when considering the political spectrum, to take a look at these charts. The Nolan Chart has its two axis based on personal freedom and economic freedom. The Pournelle Chart has its based on attitude toward the state, and attitude towards social progress. These layouts show the complexity of the political landscape better than the conventional idea of a one dimensional line with left and right extensions, although a third dimension might provide even more precision in determining relations between political viewpoints. At first glance, it would seem that the libertarian corners are the ideal location, being the opposite of totalitarianism. But, I would caution, that these extremes leave out important considerations. Any extension of freedom is going to have as its converse, a dimension of responsibility. Is a completely free society a responsible one? If the purpose of government is not to promote the common good, than I can't think of a reason to even have a government. Some libertarians might respond by proposing just that - no government. Their position might be consistent, but I think it is not very practical in the long term, and in the 21st century I think the wealthiest country in history can do better.

Digital Zero

I ended up reading a couple of articles here and here that helped me consider what's going on in music today. Maybe its not just the modern artistic quality that I find revolting, but the technical aspects of modern recording. At the heart of the discussion is "the loudness war." Music recordings are consistently getting louder, by the addition of limiters and compression, and then the quietest parts of the recording are brought up to the highest volume, leaving a giant wall-of-sound, with no dynamic differences. Any aesthetic values created by quiet or softer sounds is lost, as is the dramatic interaction between varying volumes, and any "punch" or intensity by allowing sounds to stand above the rest. The average volumes have gone from -20db to -5db, so this has pushed all the instruments into the same sonic space, and left only 5dbs of overhead for any "movement", or for anything such as kick drums to stand out. This also results in digital artifacts, as the original sounds are "clipped" off. As much of the waveform is squared off, the original performance is degraded. The final outcome is that much of the musicality of the sound turns into white noise.

This helps explain why I find new music offensive to my ears and my brain - it becomes fatiguing and disorienting, like psychological warfare. Obviously, its part of current dance and pop music. It also seems to part of the fabric of new sounds such as nu-metal, and why I think otherwise interesting bands end up sounding horrible. Much of the rationale behind this trend, is simply that it is a trend, and everybody wants their recordings to be fresh and current, like everybody else. Now, listeners of new music are so accustomed to this practice, that they don't realize its detrimental effects on the music, and why older, more dynamic, music might be richer and more apprehendable to the brain's ability to sonically comprehend what it hears and aesthtically interpret it.

One of the earliest controversies over this started with 2002's Vapor Trails from Rush. What could possibly be one of their best albums, artistically and musically, is almost unlistenable because of the recording - it just hits your ears like a full frontal assault. We have reached a point where technology should give us more fidelity, such as 24 bit /192khz recordings. We have SACD, DVD-A, as well as the more common, but excellent 5.1 CDs and DVDs, but all the dynamic room in these is going to waste on newer recordings.

The Post-American World

Last Book Read - The Post American World - Fareed Zakaria

The Post-American World is a book that might be more relevant now than when it was published in 2008. Here Fareed Zakaria provides an excellent explanation of whats happening internationally as globalism causes a major historical shift. This is the third major shift in the last 500 years, beginning with the rise of the west, followed by the rise of America, and now "the rise of the rest." As the rest of the world emerges as global players, the U.S. will lose part of its share in global economics and influence. We won't necessarily decline, but the rest of the world is catching up to us. Zakaria explains how we have gone from a multi-polar world, with many European superpowers to a bi-polar world of the Cold War, to a unipolar world of U.S. domination, and now to a uni-multipolar world. The U.S. will still remain the only superpower, and the only dominate military force, but many other countries, notably China and India, will have economic and political influence and power in all other areas. These countries will grow faster than America, although we we still gain faster than Europe, and areas like the Middle East will remain stagnant. We invented and promoted capitalism, and now the rest of the world has joined in the game, raising their own standards, and becoming our competitors.

The world has been propelled into modernity for 300 years by a liberal hegemony, a postion we inherited from the British Empire. While Zakaria points out the modern world is not synonymous with the Western World, we have spread our culture more than any other in history. English has become the common international language, and style of dress, music , and many other things from America have come to represent the standard.

In discussing the end of our uni-polar world, this book also details the decline of global respect and attitudes towards America because of the diplomatic arrogance of the last American administration. This has contributed to the "America problem." Since 1990 the U.S. had unrestricted potential. But, we "blew it." "Washington played this hand badly. America has had a period of unparalleled influence. What does it have to show for it?"

Zakaria reveals comparisons between the current state of American imperialism with the British Empire at the end of the Nineteenth century. At the point the British entered into the Boer Wars, they began to seal their decline. Similarly, America is now facing a similar situation following the war in Iraq. Zakaria argues that the even though we are over-extending ourselves economic, just as the British did, we are in a much stronger position and our economy is "likely to slip, but not significantly". However, given the unpredictable economic decline seen over the last twelve months, I find his predictions overly optimistic. But, his historic lessons are well noted, and if properly taken into advisement, can help avoid history from "happening again." Zakaria speculates that future historians, writing about events now will say "the United States succeeded in its great and historic mission - it globalized the world. But along the way, it forgot to globalize itself."

I wish I had time to point out the numerous errors and lies that are presented in the media, particularly Fox News, but I simply don't. When O'Reilly says he just presents the facts and lets the audience decide, he is wrong. There are still lies by omission. I'm so tired of hearing how The Minneapolis Star Tribune is a "far left" newspaper. It is not. They endorsed the conservative candidate for senator - only a far right person would see them as far left. The criticism of Obama is utterly amazing. I knew it would be bad, but not this bad. He's only been in office six weeks, but they're already noting his failure for re-election. No one thought W would be re-elected, but never underestimate the power of the propaganda fed by the media. He spent 52% of 2001 on vacation, but anytime someone criticized him, it was "unpatriotic." And, yes, the W administration did criticize Clinton for creating 9/11 and the problems that W had to deal with.

Now Lou Dobbs has joined in the propaganda by claiming the attacks on Rush are a conspiracy. Whatever. Rush has been the conservative voice for twenty years. I couldn't turn on CNN last weekened without seeing his fat head and hearing his angry, hateful speech. So, yes, he is a viable target as a center of power in the Republican party. CPAC itself was a joke. Why do I have to see this on CNN? Would a liberal counterpart get aired on Fox News? Only if someone temporarily forgot a web address, I suppose. Liberal media, my ass!

As for "the redistribution of wealth" (which is a phrase that makes me want to punch the next person that utters it in my presence), no one seems to even have a basic understanding of U.S. tax code. I guess no one does their own taxes. And the media is not helping. As for the controversy over the reduction in deductions for charities, it would return to Reaganomics.

OMFG! The rich might be facing new tax hikes! Some states are now considering raising taxes on the highest incomes by .5%. Obviously, we have now become a Socialist country! Of course, its never a problem when local governments raise sales tax by .5%, which affect poor citizens more than rich ones. But, Fox News is concerned about what will happen to those people making more than 1.2 million per year. Alarmist propaganda made by rich corporate owners, trying to throw their problems onto the lower classes. Never mind history. From 1932- 1986, the marginal rate for the highest tax bracket was well over 50% for federal taxes alone, peaking at 94%. The 1950s saw rates of 92%, a time when America did quite well and tax rates never seemed to hinder the rich. The current rate of 35% seems like nothing in comparison, and isn't much more than paid by those of us who don't even make enough to qualify as middle class. Many people, including Ben Stein, have realized that the only way out of this mess is for the rich to pay more, they're simply the only ones who can. Fox News isn't that smart. This is the channel that spent a day discussing the story of Biden not being able to remember a URL address for about 20 seconds. Not News. Fox News has become to news what MTV has become to music. A Joke. Useless. Meaningless.