This is hilarious.
And now that we've all laughed at Twitter, I'm here to ironically say that I have joined Twitter. So far I've found it to be a quick way to hear about what's going on and there's a lot of great links. I even got that video from Diana Hsieh through Twitter. Still trying to figure out how I can use it for some blog promotion, or if I even should. Hmmm....
Anyways, you can follow me here.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Newspaper Bailout Bill
The next business in the bailout line? Newspapers. Maybe.
A bill has been proposed in the Senate to allow newspapers to restructure their businesses as non-profit organizations. They would receive tax breaks and exemptions, but would be unable to have political endorsements (or oppositions I would imagine). The reasoning behind the move is that newspapers are vital to a democracy, and must be protected. Since reduced advertising has left most papers high and dry, papers are struggling, and many large conglomerates are halting production and filing bankruptcy.
Ok, so the government wants to save the newspaper business so citizens stay informed about government activity. But they won't allow political commentary. The government is imposing itself on papers so that citizens can keep government in check? It makes no sense, and it's a threat to freedom of the press. When the government puts it's hands in newspapers, it becomes harder to report the truth. It's a subtle step towards censorship. I sincerely hope this bill dies, and the idea doesn't resurrect itself later on.
A bill has been proposed in the Senate to allow newspapers to restructure their businesses as non-profit organizations. They would receive tax breaks and exemptions, but would be unable to have political endorsements (or oppositions I would imagine). The reasoning behind the move is that newspapers are vital to a democracy, and must be protected. Since reduced advertising has left most papers high and dry, papers are struggling, and many large conglomerates are halting production and filing bankruptcy.
"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy."
Ok, so the government wants to save the newspaper business so citizens stay informed about government activity. But they won't allow political commentary. The government is imposing itself on papers so that citizens can keep government in check? It makes no sense, and it's a threat to freedom of the press. When the government puts it's hands in newspapers, it becomes harder to report the truth. It's a subtle step towards censorship. I sincerely hope this bill dies, and the idea doesn't resurrect itself later on.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Bailout Game
Yet another weird thing found on the internet: The Bailout Game.
In the game you play the bailout duo Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke driving a truck full of money (hmm...who's money is that?). As you move along the board you decide which businesses to bail out, and which to fail. All the while recession, modeled as a pickup truck full of angry people wielding pitchforks, is creeping up behind you. You're goal is to keep recession at bay and save the economy (as if the government had that ability). Throw in some Congress wild cards and the ability to "Ask Greenspan" for financial help.
The problem with the game is that it rests on the idea that the government needs to intervene in the economy. I played the game strictly laissez-faire, not giving any money out to any failing businesses. The results: all the failed businesses blew up, recession wasn't far behind, and the economy collapsed into a depression where zombies rule (WTF?). Capitalism was not a part of the game at all.
I'd like to see a game created that models reality and not socialist theory.
In the game you play the bailout duo Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke driving a truck full of money (hmm...who's money is that?). As you move along the board you decide which businesses to bail out, and which to fail. All the while recession, modeled as a pickup truck full of angry people wielding pitchforks, is creeping up behind you. You're goal is to keep recession at bay and save the economy (as if the government had that ability). Throw in some Congress wild cards and the ability to "Ask Greenspan" for financial help.
The problem with the game is that it rests on the idea that the government needs to intervene in the economy. I played the game strictly laissez-faire, not giving any money out to any failing businesses. The results: all the failed businesses blew up, recession wasn't far behind, and the economy collapsed into a depression where zombies rule (WTF?). Capitalism was not a part of the game at all.
I'd like to see a game created that models reality and not socialist theory.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Earth Hour Condemns Progress
Earth Hour is this Saturday, March 28, 8:30 pm local time. People all across the world are shutting off all their lights as a pledge to fight global warming. The Earth Hour website is calling the measure the "world’s first global election, between Earth and global warming." A light switched off is a vote for the Earth and a light on a vote for global warming.
Many landmarks throughout the world have pledged to turn off during Earth Hour, including the Great Pyramids of Giza, the Eiffel Tower, and the Sydney Opera House. The movement hopes to have 1 billion people in darkness.
I mean just that: darkness. As in devoid of of knowledge, reason, and production. The entire environmentalist movement is anti-man, condemning him for his productivity and success in this world. The movement has taken the genius and life enhancing invention of the light bulb, and warped it into a sin. Attempts like Earth Hour aim to halt man's progress and send him back into the dark ages, all for the sake of "saving" the environment.
Keith Lockitch writes in his excellent op-ed "The Real Meaning of Earth Hour":
Many landmarks throughout the world have pledged to turn off during Earth Hour, including the Great Pyramids of Giza, the Eiffel Tower, and the Sydney Opera House. The movement hopes to have 1 billion people in darkness.
I mean just that: darkness. As in devoid of of knowledge, reason, and production. The entire environmentalist movement is anti-man, condemning him for his productivity and success in this world. The movement has taken the genius and life enhancing invention of the light bulb, and warped it into a sin. Attempts like Earth Hour aim to halt man's progress and send him back into the dark ages, all for the sake of "saving" the environment.
Keith Lockitch writes in his excellent op-ed "The Real Meaning of Earth Hour":
The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights being extinguished. Its call for people to renounce energy and to rejoice at darkened skyscrapers makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: Earth Hour symbolizes the renunciation of industrial civilization.The University of Michigan Students of Objectivism have developed Edison Hour as a counter measure to Earth Hour. Here's their Facebook event description:
In 2009, at 8.30pm on March 28, we are asking people across the world to turn ON their lights and join together in a celebration of technology and industrialization. For one hour, please use as much power and energy as possible in order to celebrate the advancement of mankind.I find it to be refreshing, a celebration of man and achievement rather than another human-hating environmental effort.
Not the Time to "Go Galt"
As Atlas Shrugged sales soar, more people are becoming acquainted with John Galt and his strike. There's been a subsequent movement of "Going Galt", which mimics the strike of the business heroes in the novel.
The strike seems to be a reaction to increasing government in the economy with bailouts, the stimulus package, and other planned actions, like universal health care. Many people are tired of being taxed and punished for their wealth. As a result they are backlashing against the government, using the eerily prophetic novel as a means to protest.
While increased publicity of Ayn Rand's novels and ideas is good, the distortion and literal application of the novel's event are not. Now is not the time to "Go Galt." Today's situation is nowhere near as drastic as it was portrayed in the novel. It is still possible to thrive in business. While there are increasing measures, the government has not nationalized most of the economy. The government is not seizing rights to inventions. The markets have not been frozen. The economy is not as controlled as it was in Atlas Shrugged.
Yet.
Yes, the country is headed in that direction. The government is tightening it's grip on business, and has even begun nationalizing a bit (hello Citigroup). If something isn't done, the nation will go south. But the situation isn't bad enough to pull out. There is still time for a revolution without destruction.
To do that, we must see past the strikers' actions and understand their motivations. The heroes of the novel didn't strike because they were tired of being taxed, they striked because they were tired of carrying moral guilt. Businessmen realized they were seen and treated as villains for ruthlessly turning a profit. They were made repent for their success by supporting the rest of the population, including other failing businesses and government endeavors. By going on strike they removed what is called the "sanction of the victim".
The realization that selfishness is not a sin is what readers should come away with. If more people understood this and applied it to their lives, a massive strike would not be necessary. We'd stop electing officials who wish to inhibit our rights and start voting for politicians who uphold them. We would not accept the intrusions on our rights. There could be mass demand for restricted government. There could be a cultural revolution without destruction, a better solution.
Despite how relevant it is, Ayn Rad never wanted her novel to become prophetic. She wouldn't want America to go down in flames, not when there's still a chance at change.
For some other posts on "Going Galt", check out Tito's Blog, Just Add Rationality, and NoodleFood. Also, check out the video interview with ARI director Yaron Brook on Pajamas Media. It's awesome.
The strike seems to be a reaction to increasing government in the economy with bailouts, the stimulus package, and other planned actions, like universal health care. Many people are tired of being taxed and punished for their wealth. As a result they are backlashing against the government, using the eerily prophetic novel as a means to protest.
While increased publicity of Ayn Rand's novels and ideas is good, the distortion and literal application of the novel's event are not. Now is not the time to "Go Galt." Today's situation is nowhere near as drastic as it was portrayed in the novel. It is still possible to thrive in business. While there are increasing measures, the government has not nationalized most of the economy. The government is not seizing rights to inventions. The markets have not been frozen. The economy is not as controlled as it was in Atlas Shrugged.
Yet.
Yes, the country is headed in that direction. The government is tightening it's grip on business, and has even begun nationalizing a bit (hello Citigroup). If something isn't done, the nation will go south. But the situation isn't bad enough to pull out. There is still time for a revolution without destruction.
To do that, we must see past the strikers' actions and understand their motivations. The heroes of the novel didn't strike because they were tired of being taxed, they striked because they were tired of carrying moral guilt. Businessmen realized they were seen and treated as villains for ruthlessly turning a profit. They were made repent for their success by supporting the rest of the population, including other failing businesses and government endeavors. By going on strike they removed what is called the "sanction of the victim".
The realization that selfishness is not a sin is what readers should come away with. If more people understood this and applied it to their lives, a massive strike would not be necessary. We'd stop electing officials who wish to inhibit our rights and start voting for politicians who uphold them. We would not accept the intrusions on our rights. There could be mass demand for restricted government. There could be a cultural revolution without destruction, a better solution.
Despite how relevant it is, Ayn Rad never wanted her novel to become prophetic. She wouldn't want America to go down in flames, not when there's still a chance at change.
For some other posts on "Going Galt", check out Tito's Blog, Just Add Rationality, and NoodleFood. Also, check out the video interview with ARI director Yaron Brook on Pajamas Media. It's awesome.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
What Does FAFSA Stand For?
It stands for:
The FAFSA makes me angry. It's confusing, it takes forever to complete, and in the end, I never receive anything because my parents "make too much money". I wouldn't fill out the thing if it wasn't required by most scholarships (because even today's merit based scholarships still have a section where they gage your need). I don't believe the government should pay any money to fund schooling. I don't believe the government should have any hand in education at all. It's a private matter. That aside, I also hate the FAFSA because it discriminates based on need. Those who make above a certain salary are not eligible for aid, no matter if the family is contributing to someone's tuition or not. It rewards based on your parents' income (something a child cannot control) rather than academic achievement (something a child can control).
I'm really tired of being passed up on scholarships because my parents have worked hard and can provide for a comfortable life. Regardless of their salary, I have earned the grades, test scores, and leadership positions that should put me in the running for most scholarships. But alas, need prevails.
- Futile Attempt at Free Student Aid
- Finicky Application for Federal Screwing Around
- Forced Acceptance of Fed's System of Awards
- Frick! Another Federal Squander of Assets
- Forsake All Facts, Substandards Aquire
- Factual Achievement Forgone for Squalor and Abjection
The FAFSA makes me angry. It's confusing, it takes forever to complete, and in the end, I never receive anything because my parents "make too much money". I wouldn't fill out the thing if it wasn't required by most scholarships (because even today's merit based scholarships still have a section where they gage your need). I don't believe the government should pay any money to fund schooling. I don't believe the government should have any hand in education at all. It's a private matter. That aside, I also hate the FAFSA because it discriminates based on need. Those who make above a certain salary are not eligible for aid, no matter if the family is contributing to someone's tuition or not. It rewards based on your parents' income (something a child cannot control) rather than academic achievement (something a child can control).
I'm really tired of being passed up on scholarships because my parents have worked hard and can provide for a comfortable life. Regardless of their salary, I have earned the grades, test scores, and leadership positions that should put me in the running for most scholarships. But alas, need prevails.
Monday, March 23, 2009
College Ethics Disappointment
While I believe WKU can give me an excellent education in the technical aspect of photojournalism, I find it severely lacking in the subject of ethics.
In most of my classes, ethics is touched upon, but never discussed in depth. There might be a day set aside for looking at several ethical codes, like the widely accepted Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. The teacher might throw some situations at us to judge, but it rarely goes further than that. We are told the obvious. Don't photoshop an image to create something false. Don't lie. Don't be biased. Don't under or over exaggerate. Sometimes we touch on more complex ethical issues such as whether splicing audio from two separate events is ok. Or how to approach an emotional situtation. Or whether to reveal a certain truth about a public figure.
But it's still not enough. I want to know what exactly it means to be objective in journalism. I want to know what it means to be subjective. I want to talk more about why being biased is bad, and how to avoid it. I want to know the differences between activist/philosophical journalism and "regular" journalism. Is one better for me than another? I want to be clear on my purpose as a photojournalist. I want to know what's newsworthy and what's not, and how to decide.
I want to create a clear, noncontradictory set of ethics for my work.
However, I don't think I'll find many of the answers I want at school. Most of my professors regard themselves as public servants. They are at the will of "the common good". And I believe that a lot of them regard objective synonymous with neutral. While I don't have everything figured out, I do not subscribe to those beliefs. I am not a servant to any person or any society. My work is not dictated by other people. I don't accept the selfless take on journalism, but I still need to clarify just what it mean to be selfish in this field.
This need was one of my major motivations in applying for the Ayn Rand Institute summer internship. I want to better understand the Objectivist ethics and how to apply it to my work. Since I do not buy into the altruistic philosophy at school, I hope to study and learn about a philosophy that I do accept, working with its experts.
Till then, I'm serching for good books on ethics, especially those with a journalism focus. I'll probably reread Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith again, this time with journalism in mind. And I'll listen to Requirements of Objective Journalism by Peter Schwartz, once I find a damn cassette player (thanks Dad for the tape).
I have so many questions. I'm really trying to find the answers. If anyone has any thoughts or advice on the subject, please do comment.
In most of my classes, ethics is touched upon, but never discussed in depth. There might be a day set aside for looking at several ethical codes, like the widely accepted Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. The teacher might throw some situations at us to judge, but it rarely goes further than that. We are told the obvious. Don't photoshop an image to create something false. Don't lie. Don't be biased. Don't under or over exaggerate. Sometimes we touch on more complex ethical issues such as whether splicing audio from two separate events is ok. Or how to approach an emotional situtation. Or whether to reveal a certain truth about a public figure.
But it's still not enough. I want to know what exactly it means to be objective in journalism. I want to know what it means to be subjective. I want to talk more about why being biased is bad, and how to avoid it. I want to know the differences between activist/philosophical journalism and "regular" journalism. Is one better for me than another? I want to be clear on my purpose as a photojournalist. I want to know what's newsworthy and what's not, and how to decide.
I want to create a clear, noncontradictory set of ethics for my work.
However, I don't think I'll find many of the answers I want at school. Most of my professors regard themselves as public servants. They are at the will of "the common good". And I believe that a lot of them regard objective synonymous with neutral. While I don't have everything figured out, I do not subscribe to those beliefs. I am not a servant to any person or any society. My work is not dictated by other people. I don't accept the selfless take on journalism, but I still need to clarify just what it mean to be selfish in this field.
This need was one of my major motivations in applying for the Ayn Rand Institute summer internship. I want to better understand the Objectivist ethics and how to apply it to my work. Since I do not buy into the altruistic philosophy at school, I hope to study and learn about a philosophy that I do accept, working with its experts.
Till then, I'm serching for good books on ethics, especially those with a journalism focus. I'll probably reread Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith again, this time with journalism in mind. And I'll listen to Requirements of Objective Journalism by Peter Schwartz, once I find a damn cassette player (thanks Dad for the tape).
I have so many questions. I'm really trying to find the answers. If anyone has any thoughts or advice on the subject, please do comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
