January 2nd, 2012

donk... donk... donk...

(no subject)

I love ideals. They're an incredible tool in the process of accomplishing your goals. But at some point your ideals have to intersect with reality, and to me this is the biggest problem libertarianism has. A little is good to cleanse the palate, but a strict libertarian view on all things is veering from idealism into unreality. I came across the following post, and I thought it was an amusing take on the issues I have with big-L libertarians. And so Collapse )
daisy

(no subject)

Hat tip to allhatnocattle for reminding me of a post I'd written months ago and never posted.

A frequent topic of conversation I used to have with a friend was the differences in attitudes between the Canadian populace and the American towards our respective governments. Canada was described to me as a Father knows best land, one where we put far too much trust in our government. From my perspective it is Americans who don't trust enough. This seems to lead to the difficulties in accomplishing new strategies and systems. I liken it to raising a teenager. When you put trust in them they will do all they can to earn that trust, to show that it is not misplaced. They will enjoy the freedoms you are giving to them and not abuse it. When you watch every move this leads to resentment and acting out.


Collapse )

On Three-Way Divisions and Eightfold Paths

(Hah! You thought this was going to be an entry on Buddhism, dintcha.)

Something that observers of politics quickly realize is that the Left-Right model of politics is far too simplistic to be useful. (Well, except for those that take up a Cause and join the Crusade against the Other Side, as such a simplistic, bipolar view makes it easier to force-fit everything into terms of "Good vs. Evil" — typically with a redifinition of what constitutes Right and Left to more conveniently fit into that person's ideals of Good and Evil. "Nazis were Leftists" and "The Soviet Union was state capitalism" crowds, I'm glaring at you.) There have been many attempts to construct multi-axis methods of categorizing the political spectrum, most of them two-dimensional.

Since the dust-up over what defines socialism, I've been meditating off and on about the internal divisions within socialism. Recently, I came to the conclusion that there are three axes that define the different branches of socialism.

Collapse )

A final thought: if socialism alone warrants three axes defining eight octants, what good is the broader Left-Right spectrum for anything other than wanking?

Over the Edge

Monthly topic

First and foremost, I wish everybody a happy and prosperous year 2012, full of health, good luck and lots of smiles for you and your dear ones! ^__^

And now, time for the Monthly Topic again. "Bash A Country" went surprisingly well if you ask me, and now that you've chosen something quite different, this could get interesting. The new monthly topic that won the last poll is...

Political Utopia

Fiction junkies, rejoice! This will be your chance to show your prowess in creating new fake realities. Or maybe regurgitating someone else's fake realities, I dunno. Here's roughly what is meant by "political utopia":

Collapse )

Collapse )
 
hatmanWTF

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops


A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today
Collapse )

To me, this is an example of "bottom line" thinking. Someone deemed it is more important to reduce training costs than it is to have a person above average as a police officer. I can see where a detective with a high IQ would thrive. I would argue that people of higher intelligence are a minority. Whether they are a 'protected class' is for the court to decide.

Is this an effort (to cut potential projected maybe it will happen costs), that has gone a bit *too far* in silliness?

Regardless of your conservative position;  liberal, or Indie-NOTAs, Do you agree with the ruling and why or why not?

Which is better for society, average cops or above average cops, when it comes to protecting society in a cost effective manner?
  • Current Mood
    annoyed annoyed
  • Tags